Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely,

Epsom and Walton Downs Regulation Bill [Lords].
Yorkshire Electric Power Bill [Lords].
Royal National Pension Fund for Nurses Bill [Lords].
Gravesend and Milton Waterworks Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bristol) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Falmouth) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

South East Cornwall Water Board Bill (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Southern Railway Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Bognor Regis Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Traction Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (STOCKTON-ON-TEES) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Stockton-on-Tees," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 85.]

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

PROPS.

Mr. HARDIE: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his Department contemplates making a return upon the use of timber as against steel props in British mines?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Captain Crookshank): A good deal of information as to the extent of the use of steel supports is already given in the annual reports of the divisional inspectors. The question of collecting such information on a general basis is under consideration.

Mr. HARDIE: Will that give more definite information as to the use of steel as against wood for the safety of the miners?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The question of getting that information is being considered.

Mr. HARDIE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman ascertain also the information as to what kind of prop the miner prefers for his own safety?

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Will my hon. and gallant Friend do all he can to encourage mineowners to adopt modern methods?

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Will the Royal Commission which is now sitting consider this matter?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I cannot answer for the Royal Commission, but as it is investigating all matters of safety, I think this question is bound to be within its purview.

Mr. TINKER: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to the complaints that men working at the coal face have to go long distances to get the timber necessary for their safety; and will he have inquiries made through His Majesty's inspectors of mines to see that this matter receives due attention?

Captain CROOKSHANK: No complaints have been made to me recently and only a few isolated complaints have been received by the divisional inspectors. These were dealt with and I have no reason to think that the matter is not already receiving proper attention.

Mr. TINKER: Is not the change of system causing some difficulty owing to the timber being taken the length of the face, and will the Minister instruct inspectors to pay close attention to this matter and to see that it is carried out?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The inspectors do pay careful attention to it, and I am aware of the consideration that the hon. Member puts forward.

GAS DETECTORS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has received any further communications from the Mining Association regarding the use of automatic gas detectors; and, if so, has he any statement to make to the House?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Yes, Sir, and as a result I have arranged to discuss the matter with a deputation from the Mining Association shortly after Easter.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman noticed that recently the Mining Association offered a prize for an automatic gas detector, and does he not think that that is merely sidetracking the law passed last year?

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered the report of a gas detector constructed by Engineer J. B. Pronin, which has passed all tests, the principle of which is that a bell, siren, or horn announces

the accumulation of gas to a degree sufficient to endanger life; and will he give this detector a trial?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I have not received any report regarding the gas detector referred to, and I shall be glad if the hon. Member would send me further particulars.

Mr. T. SMITH: asked the Secretary for Mines whether, as a result of the regulation dealing with the compulsory use of gas detectors underground, any new type of automatic detector has been submitted to the Department for investigation and approval?

Captain CROOKSHANK: No new types of automatic detectors have been submitted to my Department for investigation and approval since the Firedamp Detector Regulations came into operation. One such instrument has, however, been undergoing tests and modifications during a considerable period, and further tests of an improved model of that instrument are now being made.

BOYS (NORTHUMBERLAND).

Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the number of lads 14 to 16 years of age employed in and about the Northumberland mines during 1933, 1934 and 1935;

(2) the number of lads 16 to 18 years of age employed in and about the Northumberland mines during 1933, 1934 and 1935?

Captain CROOKSHANK: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:


Number of boys employed in Northumberland mines.


—
Under 16 years.
16–18 years.


December, 1933
1,614
2,137


December, 1934
2,056
2,057


December, 1935
2,204
2,290

MINES CENTRAL WELFARE COMMITTEE.

Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: asked the Secretary for Mines the names and positions held by the personnel of the Mines Central


Welfare, London, and also the names and positions held by district staffs?

Captain CROOKSHANK: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL, REPORT a statement of the numbers and grades of those employed by the Miners' Welfare Committee and also, in so far as I have the information, by the district committees.

Following is the statement:

MINERS' WELFARE COMMITTEE.

Staff Establishment, April, 1936.

1
Secretary to Miners' Welfare Committee.*


1
Assistant Secretary to Miners' Welfare Committee.* Also acts as Secretary to Miners' Welfare National Scholarship Scheme.


1
Staff Officer.*


2
Clerks Higher Grade.*


1
Personal Assistant (Vacant).


1
Accountant.


1
Legal Assistant.


6
Clerks. Male (3*).


5
Clerks. Girls.


1
Supervisor of Typing Staff.


6
Shorthand Typists.


1
Chief Architect.


3
Senior Architects.


6
Architects.


6
Senior Architectural Assistants.


11
Architectural Assistants Grade I.


12
Architectural Assistants Grade II. (2 vacancies).


6
Architectural Assistants Grade III.


1
Engineer.


1
Senior Assistant Engineer.


1
Assistant Engineer Grade I.


2
Assistant Engineers Grade II.


1
Chief Quantity Surveyor.


7
Quantity Surveyors.


9
Quantity Surveyor's Assistants Grade II.


1
Quantity Surveyor's Assistant Grade III. (1 vacancy).


1
Junior Quantity Surveyor's Assistant. I. Welfare Adviser.


1
Assistant.


1
Female Draughtsman Grade II.


1
Head of District Branch.


1
Personal Assistant.


1
Surveyor.


1
Assistant Surveyor.


1
Surveyor's Assistant Grade II.


1
Surveyor's Assistant Grade III.


5
District Organisers (2 vacancies).


1
Assistant District Organiser.


110




(Three messengers are also employed.)


*Indicates Civil Servants on loan to the Committee.

Staff employed by District Welfare Committees.

On the information available the District Committees employ 31 secretaries, about 70

clerical workers and five outdoor workers. In addition, most of the District Committees receive a grant for office expenses which may include some clerical assistance.

BRISTOL (COLLIERY, CLOSING).

Mr. TINKER: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has considered the request from representatives of the Bristol miners to make inquiries into the suggested closing down of two collieries, seeing that if these collieries are stopped it will mean putting out of employment several hundreds of men; and will he state what steps he is taking to prevent this happening?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I understand that the East Bristol Collieries, Limited, hive decided to close down their Speedwell Colliery owing to trading losses, but that their Parkfield Colliery is to be carried on for the time being on a limited scale. The problem is entirely an economic one, and I am afraid that it is not in my power to assist.

Mr. TINKER: Can the Minister arrange a conference with the owners and miners, because the closing down of one pit may lead to the closing down of another owing to water trouble, and his intervention might help?

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Seeing that the mineowners made £5,500,000 and the royalty owners £5,000,000, does not the Minister think it would be good if the mines were nationalised?

Mr. TINKER: Will the Minister give an answer to my question?

Captain CROOKSHANK: As I understand the position, it is due to trading loss that this company has to close down. If there is any question of a possible danger elsewhere, I will have special inquiry made.

Mr. BATEY: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that this is a serious matter to this district, for, if this colliery closes, there is a likelihood of the closing of another and there will be no colliery in the district? Will he endeavour to get the owners and men together to see whether something can be done to keep this pit working?

PETROLEUM INDUSTRY (GREAT BRITAIN).

Mr. HARDIE: asked the Secretary for Mines what methods were adopted to give direction to the place where boring for oil has been decided upon?

Captain CROOKSHANK: The selection of sites for drilling is a matter for the licensee, who is entitled to use whatever method of determination appears to be appropriate in each case.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not for the Government to say where boring for oil should take place?

Captain CROOKSHANK: No, it is not the Government's business. The Government business is to grant licences, and to see that the work is carried on.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it not a fact that when these licences are granted certain conditions are laid clown as to where or when, and also to prevent boring until full advantage has been taken of all the knowledge possessed in such work?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Not "where or when," A licence covers the area and it is granted to the licensee for working it.

Mr. HARDIE: Is not a licence granted to the holder to do what he likes, and the Minister cannot control him?

NEW ZEALAND (IMMIGRATION).

Mr. DUNCAN: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will encourage the setting up in New Zealand of a Fairbridge farm-school similar to those established in other Dominions?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I understand that the Fairbridge Society are examining the possibility of establishing a farm-school in New Zealand. If the project is supported by the New Zealand Government, and the Society approaches me for a Government contribution towards the cost, I will give the application my careful consideration.

Mr. DUNCAN: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has considered the statement of Mr. Savage, Prime Minister of New Zealand, that his Government would be more than

sympathetic to a scheme of planned immigration to that country; and will he immediately ask the Oversea Settlement Board to take this matter up with the New Zealand authorities and prepare mutually satisfactory plans?

Mr. MacDONALD: I have seen reports in the Press of the statement of the Prime Minister of New Zealand to which my hon. Friend refers. I am awaiting a fuller report so that I may give it careful consideration.

Mr. DUNCAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman get the Oversea Settlement Board to consider this matter so that they can lay their plans in advance?

Mr. MacDONALD: The board are engaged in an examination with a view to laying plans now. It is holding regular meetings. If there is any matter arising out of this statement, I will, when I get a full report of it, submit it to the board.

Sir PATRICK HANNON: Is not this an opportunity for the board to take action at once?

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that previous efforts in this direction have met with disastrous results?

Mr. LEVY: Can the board initiate plans or have they simply to consider plans put before them?

Mr. MacDONALD: They consider proposals on any matters which are put before them by the Secretary of State.

CANADA (LOAN OBLIGATIONS)

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will ascertain the intentions of the Canadian Government regarding the default on the obligations of the province of Alberta and the decision of the city of Montreal to ask for powers to enforce the conversion of the rate of interest on its obligations, in view of the effect upon United Kingdom holders of the loans of Canadian public authorities?

Rear - Admiral Sir MURRAY SUETER: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will inquire of the Canadian Government authorities whether the proposals to en-


force, against the rights of the holders, a reduction of the contractual interest upon City of Montreal sterling loans, subscribed for in London, will be permitted by the Dominion authorities?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: I understand that papers were tabled in the Canadian House of Commons on 1st April, and that a statement was made by the Dominion Minister of Finance on that date regarding the Canadian Government's attitude towards the situation which has arisen in Alberta. I have not yet received the full text, but I will send my hon. Friend a copy as soon as it is available. My hon. Friend will, however, be aware that the Dominion Government, after negotiations with the Provinces of Canada, has proposed an amendment to the British North America Act with a view to obtaining enabling powers to give a Dominion guarantee to provincial obligations and to provide for the pledging of specific provincial revenues for this purpose. As regards Montreal loans, I understand that the Montreal City Council is preparing for submission to the Quebec Legislature a general municipal Bill. According to my information, however, this Bill has not yet been completed, and it would therefore be premature to make any such inquiries as the hon. Members suggest.

Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman recollect in dealing with Alberta that in connection with a similar situation in Newfoundland His Majesty's Government assumed financial responsibility?

Mr. MacDONALD: His Majesty's Government do not deal with the Government of Alberta in this matter.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Is it the case that the situation in Alberta is similar to the case of Newfoundland?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

STEAMSHIP "DALHANNA."

Mr. GALLAGHER: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steamship "Dalhanna," on arrival at Barry from Glasgow, paid off a crew of British firemen and replaced them with an Arab crew; and can he inform the House whether this is a subsidised ship and the difference in wages

being paid to the new crew of firemen as compared to the original crew?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): Yes, Sir. One of the present firemen is a British subject, and the remaining firemen are British protected persons. The wages paid to the present crew are the National Maritime Beard rates, and are the same as those paid to the former crew. It will not be known for some time whether subsidy will be claimed for the present voyage.

TRAMP SHIPPING SUBSIDY (FOREIGN CREWS).

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of vessels in respect of which subsidy payments have been made which carry as part of their crews lascar or Chinese seamen or firemen?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that the information desired is not available. If the hon. Member is concerned with the employment of foreigners on vessels receiving subsidy, this is, of course, now exceptional. Subsidy is not paid in respect of any voyage without a recommendation from the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee, and it is the declared policy of the Committee that British crews should be employed wherever practicable.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand definitely that no subsidy is payable where Chinese or lascar seamen are employed?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That depends upon the nationality of the Chinese or lascar seamen.

Mr. SHINWELL: Are we to understand that in spite of the fact that the wages paid are inconsistent with the decision of the National Maritime Board, the subsidy is paid?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, each case must be examined on its merits.

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: If I can bring evidence that the crews are, in fact, foreign, and not British lascars or Chinese, will the right hon. Gentleman then take action?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member gives me that information, I shall, of course, hand it over to the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee.

Mr. SMITH: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of white British, lascars, and Chinese signed on as members of the crew of the steamship "Kelvinbank," and whether subsidy has been paid in respect of voyages made by this vessel?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Twelve white British officers and one Chinese carpenter have been engaged for service on the "Kelvinbank" on an agreement opened at Cardiff on 25th March, 4936. Thirty-five lascars are serving on a lascar agreement opened at Calcutta on 5th August, 1935. Subsidy for this vessel has been paid in respect of voyages carried out in 1935.

Mr. SMITH: Is it the case that the agreement they are under contravenes the rates of the National Maritime Board?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say that until the agreement has been examined by the committee.

Mr. SMITH: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say they were being paid on an agreement the lascars made in India, and therefore they cannot be the Maritime Board rates.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the articles of the steamship "Kelvinbank" there is a clause to the effect that overtime payments shall not be made in any circumstances to the members of the crew; and, as such a clause is contrary to the agreements or recommendations of the National Maritime Board, will he take action in the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: In the European articles of the steamship "Kelvinbank" opened at Cardinff on the 25th March, 1936, there is a clause to the effect stated in the hon. Member's question. The agreement relates to the officers, in respect of whom there is no National Maritime Board agreement as to overtime, and to a carpenter. The remaining members of the crew are employed on a lascar agreement and, as is customary, there are no stipulations regarding overtime in this agreement. I have drawn the attention of the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee to this matter.

Mr. SMITH: As the carpenter is British he would naturally come under the Maritime Board rates, and if that is so the agreement is not being observed by this company. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already said that I have drawn the attention of the Committee to these facts.

SEA FISH COMMISSION (REPORT).

Mr. GARRO-JONES: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether Ids attention has been drawn to the dishonest practice of steam-trawler owners, reported as general on page 88 of the Report of the Sea Fish Commission, under which the owners charged as costs in the settling sheets of the crews sums for fish-selling commission which exceed by a substantial amount the actual expenses to the owners; and whether he will take immediate steps to deal with this fraud on the employés in this industry;

(2) whether he is aware that, whereas the cost of ice is charged on trawler-men's settling sheets at an apparently fair prime cost, the owners have in many cases been in receipt of annual bonuses or rebates paid by the ice companies, irrespective of any shares the trawler owners may hold in those companies, and that these rebates have not been credited in the settling sheets; and whether this practice of doubtful honesty will receive his immediate attention;

(3) whether his attention has been drawn to the irregularities by steam-trawler owners in the statements of their costs on statutory settling accounts with their crews; that the Sea Fish Commission Report discloses that many owners have added percentages varying from 10 per cent. to over 100 per cent. to their costs in the case of some consumable stores; that these additions are admitted by the owners; and that they are grossly unfair to the skippers and crews; and whether he contemplates taking any legal or other steps to deal with this urgent matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received the report of the Sea Fish Commission, and can assure the hon. Member that I appreciate the desirability of early action regarding the matters to which he refers.


The recommendations of the Commission are receiving immediate consideration with this object in view.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Having regard to the elaborate nature of the recommendations for the reorganisation of this industry contained in the report, can the right hon. Gentleman give me, as representing a constituency of fishermen, an assurance that the measures he contemplates will not be delayed until effect has been given to those elaborate recommendations?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have already said that the recommendations of the Commission are receiving immediate consideration with that object in view.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the recommendations of the previous Sea Fish Commission also be taken into consideration, since they are almost parallel with the more recent recommendations, and emphasise the necessity for action?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as action is concerned, that rests primarily with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Scottish Office.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: While I appreciate the reply which the right hon. Gentleman has given to me, can he state that he recognises his separate responsibility from that of the Minister of Agriculture in so far as these are matters coming within his purview although the general recommendations come within the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: In so far as they come within my purview, of course I take responsibility.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT, 1927.

Mr. DAY: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, was one that was passed for 10 years' duration and before the introduction of talking pictures, which has changed the whole cinema industry since the passing of that Act, he will state whether the Cinematograph Films Advisory Committee have made any representations or recommendations to him for the purpose of introducing legislation

to meet the modern requirements in the cinema industry; and whether these recommendations will be placed before the committee recently appointed by him for their consideration?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received a report from the Cinematograph Films Advisory Committee recommending certain amendments in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, and this report will be available to the Departmental Committee which I appointed recently.

Mr. DAY: Have any further recommendations been made by the Advisory Committee, and will the right hon. Gentleman forward them to the Departmental Committee?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is the fullest communication between the two committees.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

INDIA (OTTAWA AGREEMENT).

Mr. LEVY: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the decision of the Indian Legislative Assembly which has been accepted by the Government of India that the trade agreement between India and the United Kingdom should be denounced, he will give consideration to the question of the removal of the duty of 10 per cent. ad valorem on foreign linseed as soon as the trade agreement with India is terminated; and whether at the same time he will request the Import Duties Advisory Committee to consider what modifications in consequence will be necessary in the duties on linseed oil and of her goods into the manufacture of which linseed oil enters?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: His Majesty's Government have not received any notification of the intention of the Government of India to terminate the Ottawa Trade Agreement, but, if they do, the question of continuing the duty on foreign linseed and any consequential questions will fall to be considered in any negotiations that ensue.

Mr. LIDDALL: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the decision of the Indian Government to terminate the Ottawa Trade Agreement, he will review the clause in the


Import Duties Act giving free entry into this country to all goods from Empire sources which are not covered by any other enactment?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: His Majesty's Government have not received any official notification of the intention of the Government of India to terminate the Ottawa Trade Agreement, but, if they do, the question of continuing free entry for Indian goods will fall to be considered in any consequent negotiations.

Sir P. HANNON: Did the President of the Board of Trade hear the reply given to me yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State for India that the Government of India would consider the cancellation of the Ottawa Agreement?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: That emphasises what I said in my answer, that the question of continuing free entry for Indian goods will fall to be considered in any consequent negotiations.

CORNED BEEF.

Mr. AMMON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has inquired into the shortage of supply and increased cost of corned beef; and can he now say to what extent it is due to quota restrictions?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I understand that the increase in the wholesale prices of corned beef is largely attributable to the increased cost of cattle of the type used for canning. The voluntary limitation of imports at present in force does not involve any reduction of quantity below the level of the last four years. The position is being watched.

Mr. AMMON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the imports are as high as before there is considerable re-export from this country, and is he also aware that those re-exports are said to be going to Italy?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I certainly could not answer that question without notice.

Mr. AMMON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries and inform the House whether he is sure that they are not going to Italy?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am ready to make inquiries, but I have not got the information now.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the price of corned beef has gone up almost phenomenally in the last three months, and in the circumstances would it not be a good thing to refer the question to the Food Council?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It certainly is matter which can be inquired into. I think it merits inquiry.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the rise in price is also due to the increase in the cost of bacon, because people are now buying corned beef instead of bacon?

ANGLO-ARGENTINE AGREEMENT.

Sir P. HANNON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the determination of the Anglo-Argentine trade agreement on 6th May, he will take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the livestock industry in this country in any future agreement, and in the revision of the agreement will consult representatives of the various organisations concerned with agriculture and allied industries?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Anglo-Argentine Agreement will not terminate on 6th May, but it will then become subject to six months' notice of denunciation by either party. Informal discussions with a view to the revision of the agreement are now taking place, and the most careful consideration will be given to the effect upon the industries and trade of this country of any proposals brought forward during the discussions. I need hardly add that so far as the livestock industry is concerned I am in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Sir P. HANNON: Have the Board of Trade got into touch with the various organisations, through the Ministry of Agriculture or otherwise, and will my right hon. Friend take their views before coming to an agreement?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, we are collecting their views and are kept well informed.

Sir P. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement when the House re-assembles?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am afraid that I cannot say at present. The negotiations will be opened very shortly.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to determine this agreement on 6th May, so that his hands are free in dealing with the Argentine Government?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I will certainly put myself in the position of being able to bargain with them on an equal basis.

SOFT-WOOD BOX BOARDS (IMPORT).

Mr. LOFTUS: asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of imports of soft-wood box boards imported in each of the following years: 1924, 1930, 1934 and 1935?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total declared value of the imports into the United Kingdom of soft-wood box boards, sawn or planed, but not dovetailed, mortised or tenoned at the ends, was £1,020,000 in 1934 and £1,134,000 in 1935. Similar particulars for 1924 and 1930 are not available, as imports of box boards were not recorded separately prior to 1934.

Mr. LOFTUS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that imports of foreign box boards pay 10 per cent. duty and that the raw material of the English box board manufacturers also pays 10 per cent., and that, owing to the waste upon manufacture, there is an actual preference of about one-quarter.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

GRANARIES.

Captain A. GRAHAM: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the question of utilising surplus Canadian grain to stock British granaries for defence purposes is now before His Majesty's Government in Canada; and whether, in view of this fact, he will proceed to immediate discussion of this matter with the Canadian Government, with a view to speedy action, without waiting for discussion of the matter in this House?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no official information to the effect suggested in the first part of the question.

Captain GRAHAM: How does my right hon. Friend reconcile that answer with

the statement made yesterday by the Canadian Minister for Trade and the Chairman of their Wheat Committee, suggesting that a representation on this subject should come from this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not received that suggestion officially.

Captain GRAHAM: It is in the "Times" to-day.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the Prime Minister whether, in dealing with questions relating to the supply of foodstuffs as a national defence service, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries will be able to answer for Scotland as well as England and Wales?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): So far as questions on the supply of foodstuffs in connexion with national defence relate to Great Britain's production as a whole, it would be a matter of convenience if they were addressed, in the first instance, to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, who would, of course, confer with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Subject to this, all questions relating to production in Scotland should be addressed to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. ALEXANDER: In view of the repeated questions which are now being put to the Prime Minister on this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman take care that there is no panic buying of reserves for war in this direction such as would injure the consumer; or, at any rate, will he first have proper consultation on this matter with the Food Council?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think that that question arises, but the right hon. Gentleman may rest quite assured that there is no prospect of what he deprecates.

COMMITTEE OF IMPERIAL DEFENCE (SECRETARY).

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Prime Minister, if the official at present holding the offices of Secretary of the Committee of Imperial Defence and Secretary to the Cabinet will be allowed to delegate any of his secret and confidential work to any additional staff appointed to assist him?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative. There has always been a systematic devolution of the work of these offices as in every branch of the public service. The recent increases in the staff of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and more particularly the appointment of a Deputy-Secretary to the Committee of Imperial Defence, have enabled further relief to be given to the Secretary.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES (OVERTIME).

Mr. HICKS: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the discontent prevailing amongst foremen and assistants, storeholders and assistants, worktakers, ratefixers, and estimators, employed in the Royal Ordnance factories at Woolwich and Enfield, on account of the excessive overtime being worked forex-gratiapayments instead of proper overtime rates; whether he is aware that these grades are suffering under an agreement which was never intended to apply in the emergency period which now exists; and whether he will have inquiries made into the matter?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): The scales of pay in issue to these employés, which in all cases derive from awards of the Industrial Court or agreements with the staff side of the appropriate Whitley body, were designed to cover all time worked. There is therefore no entitlement to overtime pay. In view, however, of heavy pressure during recent months on work of an emergency character, involving exceptional hours of duty, a special arrangement for some ex-gratia payments was made. The staff side have lately made representations on certain aspects of this arrangement, and discussion with them at an early date is contemplated.

Mr. HICKS: Do I understand from the Minister that he is receiving a deputation from the representatives in order to discuss the matter?

Mr. COOPER: What is contemplated is a discussion under the ordinary Whitley conditions.

Mr. HICKS: Is the Secretary of State aware that overtime now is not desired either by the workpeople or the staff,

but is being made compulsory, and, in the circumstances, does he not think that the request is a reasonable one?

Mr. COOPER: I am not sure to what request the hon. Member refers. The whole matter is now to be discussed. I have had no request to receive a deputation, and the matter is to be discussed in the ordinary course.

Mr. HICKS: Would the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation?

Mr. COOPER: I will make inquiries.

CHEMICAL WARFARE.

Mr. CARY: asked the Secretary of State for War what type of training, if any, is carried out by the War Office in the use of poison gas as a legitimate weapon of warfare; and whether chemical experts are employed to work to this end in consultation with Army authorities?

Mr. COOPER: No training in the use of poison gas as a weapon of war is carried out in the Army, but possible methods of the use of gas have naturally to be studied in connection with training in defence against gas. Chemical experts have, of course, been closely associated with the Army authorities in connection with such training.

Mr. CARY: In view of the atrocious effectiveness of gas in modern warfare would my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the British Army will not descend to the use of poison gas as a retaliation?

Sir P. HARRIS: Is the War Office military attaché with the Italian Army in Ethiopia watching their use of poison gas?

Mr. BERNAYS: Is gas ever a legitimate weapon of warfare, as suggested in the question?

Mr. SHINWELL: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any protective clothing other than oilskins are in issue for the protection of the troops from corrosive and incendiary chemicals; and whether he is aware that the German and other Governments are now experimenting with rubber clothing?

Mr. COOPER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second in the affirmative.

MANOEUVRES.

Mr. CARY: asked the Secretary of State for War the nature and extent of the decisions of the Imperial General Staff in regard to Army manoeuvres this year; whether the co-operation of the other fighting Services is to be sought; whether official invitations to attend are to be issued to foreign observers; and, if so, which nations are to be so favoured?

Mr. COOPER: It is proposed to put the Military Manoeuvres Acts into operation in parts of Surrey and Sussex during the period 15th July to 14th October, when certain brigade training and divisional exercises will take place. Normal training will also be carried out by units in the neighbourhood of their peace stations. As in previous years, Air Force units will co-operate with Army units in the larger exercises, and a combined exercise is being arranged with the Royal Navy near Milford-on-Sea in September. The usual invitations to attend the collective training will be sent to all foreign military attaches and assistant military attaches in London.

Mr. BOSSOM: As we are inviting foreigners to see these manoeuvres can a cinema film be taken so that our own people may also see them?

Mr. COOPER: That is another question.

ANTI-GAS RESPIRATOR.

Mr. SHINWELL: asked the Secretary of State for War the names and basis of the gases with which the anti-gas protectors for the troops have been recently tested; and whether the results have been proved effective?

Mr. COOPER: As I informed the hon. Member in reply to a question on 31st March last, the present pattern of mobilisation container is considered to provide adequate protection against the gases likely to be encountered. The hon. Member will doubtless realise that it is not in the public interest that I should answer the first part of his question.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, in the opinion of experts, the present containers and respirators are not considered effective against the newer European and Japanese gases?

Mr. COOPER: No, Sir, I am not aware of that, but if the hon. Member will give me information to confirm that statement I shall be happy to look into it.

Mr. SHINWELL: I will do that, but meanwhile will the Minister be good enough to say whether the anti-gas protectors intended to be used by the troops have been tested in relation to these newer gases, and, if so, with what results?

Mr. COOPER: Certainly, they have been tested, and with satisfactory results.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Will the hon. Member submit to a test for this House?

Mr. SHINWELL: Certainly, in company with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, at any time.

SURPLUS WAR MATERIAL (SALE).

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for War the countries or persons to whom the following surplus armaments of war material has been sold during the previous three years: 71 Lewis guns, 150 Lewis gun magazines, 2.000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition, 300 respirators, 30 depth charges, and one three-pounder gun?

Mr. COOPER: I do not think it would be in the public interest to disclose the names of the foreign Powers to whom, or for export to whom, the British Government dispose of surplus war material.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether they have been sold by tender for the highest price?

Mr. SILVERMAN: Why are we selling this war material while this House is being asked to vote untold sums for the supply of new material?

Mr. COOPER: Certain war materials become obsolete.

Mr. GARRO-JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in previous questions of this kind Presidents of the Board of Trade have given the names of companies to whom licences have been given? Does the right hon. Gentleman have to get a licence from the Board of Trade, and, if not, as the Board of Trade can give this information, why cannot the War Office?

Mr. DAY: What is the loss on this war material?

Mr. COOPER: I do not see how there is to be a loss on the selling of war materials if they are not of any use.

Mr. DAY: Are not the respirators that are being sold of any use?

CADET CORPS.

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the value of the cadet movement as a recruiting ground for the Regular and Territorial Armies, and the fact that the success of cadet corps depends largely upon annual camps, he proposes to accord them any financial assistance towards the holding of such camps?

Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir. I propose to waive in certain circumstances the charges hitherto made, to cover depreciation and the cost of handling, etc., at ordnance depots, in respect of camping equipment loaned to cadet corps. The concession will apply to cadet corps enrolled in the British National Cadet Association and affiliated to units of the Regular or Territorial Army. It will be subject to the total cost not exceeding £1,500 in any year.

Brigadier-General BROWN: While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask him whether he will ask the Territorial Associations to take full advantage of the new facilities?

Mr. COOPER: I shall be very glad to consider doing so.

Mr. J. J. DAVIDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman also respect the desire of local authorities who do not wish their young people to have this training?

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Is that concession to take effect this year, and is it not the parents, and not the local authorities, who should be considered?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.

Mr. BEAUMONT: May I have an answer as to whether the concession is to take effect this year?

STAFF CONVERSATIONS.

Mr. CARY: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the forth-

coming staff talks in so far as the War Office is concerned, the negotiations will be conducted solely through the director of military operations and intelligence; and whether all agenda relating to a system of defensive contact with foreign armies will be confined to matters of strategic necessity?

Mr. COOPER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The agenda will be as stated in Section III of Command Paper No. 5134.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that the agenda for the staff conversations will be prepared by the Cabinet and not by the General Staff?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have already told the House that the Cabinet will keep careful watch on this matter.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: May we rest assured that no British military secrets will be disclosed during these conversations?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that that is extremely unlikely, from what I know of our officers who will be in control.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Are, then, secrets to be disclosed on one side and not on the other?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not really know what "secrets" means in this connection.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HERRING INDUSTRY.

Mr. MALCOLM MacMILLAN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to take any action with regard to the repeated demands of the herring fishing industry for a minimum wage of £2 per week; what that action is likely to be; and when he will take it?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 18th February to the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) in which I explained that the financial assistance provided by the Herring Industry Act cannot competently be used to guarantee a minimum wage and that


I can hold out no prospects of legislation for that purpose.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is the Minister in touch with the Herring Board and the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence regarding special emergency measures relating to this industry, so far as affects general defence measures?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am in touch with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. LEONARD: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many herring-fishing drifters were chartered last year to assist the Fishery Board cruisers in policing Scottish fishing grounds; the months they were so employed; whether similar use will be made of fishing drifters this year; and to what extent?

Sir G. COLLINS: Four drifters were hired for fishery protection duty during the periods January to March and October to December, 1935, and two drifters during the remaining six months of the year. During the current year four drifters were employed from January to March, since when two have been employed. The question of increasing the drifter patrol during the winter months will be considered in due course.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS.

Mr. M. MacMILLAN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to visit the Islands and Highlands of Scotland for the purpose of investigating the distress prevailing in these areas or, if not, whether he will send deputies for this purpose; and, failing this, whether he will have a commission set up for the purpose and publish a report?

Sir G. COLLINS: The condition of the Highlands and Islands is kept constantly under the most careful observation, and I can assure the hon. Member that I shall continue to take every opportunity of acquainting myself with it at first hand.

Mr. MacMILLAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to set up such a commission as is asked for in the last part of my question?

Sir G. COLLINS: Not at the moment, at any rate.

Mr. DAVIDSON: May I ask from what source the right hon. Gentleman receives

reports regarding the Highlands and Islands?

Sir G. COLLINS: We have many channels of information. We have the very best information.

CROFTERS' HOUSING LOANS (INTEREST RATES).

Mr. M. MacMILLAN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the saving to the Treasury by the present cheapness of money and by recent conversion and other expedients, he will take steps to pass these advantages on to the overburdened crofters by reducing the rates of interest from 3⅛ per cent. on assisted houses to the level of those paying by 1¼ per cent. annuities?

Sir G. COLLINS: Specially favourable arrangements are made by the Department of Agriculture under which crofters can purchase materials for the erection and improvement of their houses at cost price and obtain a substantial contribution to the cost of freight. I am not satisfied that there is any case for a reduction in the interest rate of 3⅛ per cent. on loans made to them for the purposes.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. JOHNSTON: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make a statement with regard to the formation of a Scottish economic advisory council; and will say what are the functions and constitution of the council?

Sir G. COLLINS: I would refer the right hon. Member to my reply to questions on the subject on the 1st instant, in which I indicated that the Committee had been set up and gave information as to its functions and constitution. The first meeting of the Committee, at which I was present, was held in Edinburgh yesterday.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has just informed an hon. Member, in reply to another question, that he has many channels of information? If he has the Special Area Commissioners, the Highland Development Council, and the Scottish National Development Council, all giving him information, does he intend to take the advice of any of them after he has got it?

Sir G. COLLINS: That depends upon what exactly is the advice tendered to me.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Are there any of the members of this Economic Advisory Council who are not members of the National Development Council?

Sir G. COLLINS: This body was appointed by the National Development Council in consultation with myself, and the right hon Gentleman knows that a member of his organisation in Scotland is now an honoured member of it.

Mr. MAXTON: Does that make it all right?

LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPUTATIONS.

Mr. DAVIDSON: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of Scottish local government deputations received by the Secretary of State for Scotland for the years 1934 and 1935, respectively?

Sir G. COLLINS: No separate register is kept of the many local government deputations which are received by me or on my behalf, the normal practice being to record the interview in the appropriate file of the Scottish Office or other Scottish Department dealing with the matter discussed. I do not think the expenditure of time and labour involved in a detailed scrutiny of these files in order to provide the information requested would be justified.

Mr. DAVIDSON: Are any steps being taken to avoid this unnecessary travelling of local government officials to London from Scotland?

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, Sir. We opened an office in Edinburgh, in connection with my office in London, to enable these deputations to be met in Edinburgh, and many have since been met in Edinburgh.

Mr. DAVIDSON: How often can these deputations see the right hon. Gentleman personally in those offices?

Sir G. COLLINS: I endeavour to lay myself open to receive them as many times as is humanly possible.

PRISONS DEPARTMENT.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that an advertisement is

appearing in the daily newspapers inviting applications for the position of inspector of Scottish prisons; and that applications have to be lodged with the secretary of the Prisons Department; arid whether he can state who will be responsible for selecting the short leet or making the final appointment?

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, Sir. The short leet for this appointment will be drawn up by a selection board appointed in accordance with usual practice and including a representative of the Civil Service Commissioners. I will make the final appointment after consideration of the selection board's recommendation.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will that same committee select the short leet?

Sir G. COLLINS: I think so but I will make further inquiries.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a glossary of Scottish terms made for the benefit of English Members?

Mr. MACLEAN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of applications received for the appointment of secretary of the Prisons Department for Scotland; how many of these applications were received respectively from prison officials in Scotland, prison officials in England, and officials in the prisons department; whether he can state the number placed on the short leet; and the number of these who had previous prison official experience?

Sir G. COLLINS: Four hundred and sixteen applications were received for the appointment of Secretary of the Prisons Department for Scotland. Of these four were from prisons officers in Scotland, seven from prisons officers in England and two from the headquarters of the Prisons Department for Scotland. Twenty-six candidates were placed on the short leet and of these seven had previous prison official experience.

Mr. MACLEAN: Why is it necessary to reduce the leet?

Sir G. COLLINS: There is no particular reason why the leet was reduced in any one respect, but these 26 were thought to be the best out of the 416 submitted.

Mr. MACLEAN: How long experience had the successful candidate?

Sir G. COLLINS: No particular time is necessary. It all depends on the qualifications of the different individuals.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am asking how long experience this particular successful candidate had.

Sir G. COLLINS: The particular successful applicant has not yet been chosen. I am afraid I am unable to answer that question.

PRISONERS (MENTAL INSTITUTIONS).

Mr. MACLEAN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of untried prisoners who have been removed from Barlinnie Prison to asylums or mental institutions since August, 1935, to the last convenient date without any intimation having been given to their relatives either of the intention to have them medically examined or of their removal; and what reason can be given for such action, in view of the pledge given to this House on 4th July, 1935?

Sir G. COLLINS: According to my information no untried prisoners were removed from Barlinnie Prison to asylums or mental institutions between August, 1935, and 31st March, 1936. During that period five persons were ordered by the Courts to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure, and were removed from the prison to the Criminal Lunatic Department, Perth. Their relatives were informed in each case.

Mr. MACLEAN: How many of these prisoners were untried when they were sent there?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have given the hon. Member the best information I have. If he has any particular case in mind, I will gladly look into it.

REFUSE DUMP, EAST WEMYSS.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his Department has considered the complaints from the Wemyss District Council concerning an alleged insanitary coup used by the Fife County Council for refuse from the village of East Wemyss; and whether he has made, or will make, representations to the county council regarding improving the sanitary position in this respect?

Sir G. COLLINS: The reply to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part,

I understand that the county council have already agreed to discontinue the use of the dump. The Department of Health have asked the county council to expedite the making of other arrangements.

SCOTTISH OFFICE (PRINTING AND ADVERTISING).

Mr. DAVIDSON: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total expenditure of the Scottish Office on printing and advertising for the year 1935?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): For the year 1935 the t expenditure on behalf of the Scottish Office on printing was £639, and on Press advertising £128.

STATIONERY OFFICE (CONTRACTS).

Mr. DAVIDSON: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what Scottish printing firms, if any, receive Government printing contracts or work?

Mr. MORRISON: Eighteen Scottish firms hold running contracts from His Majesty's Stationery Office for printing, binding, etc., and 21 other Scottish firms have during the year ended 31st March, 1926, executed printing and binding work for His Majesty's Stationery Office in ad hoc contracts for specific jobs. The number of Scottish firms holding running contracts from His Majesty's Stationery Office for Lists and Registers under the Representation of the People Acts is 82.

CRIME (GLASGOW).

Mr. HARDIE: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that, at a conference of national probation officers held in Glasgow on 19th March, Assistant Chief Constable Donald McPherson, of the city police force, stated that, following the introduction of the means test, crime in Glasgow had increased by leaps and bounds; and whether his Department has taken any action to remedy this condition of affairs?

Sir G. COLLINS: The number of crimes against property in Glasgow has been increasing every year since 1927, with the exception of 1934. There is no evidence to show tint the increase since 1931 was due to the operation of the means test. As regards the second part


of the question the police are dealing with this kind of crime by concentrated and improved methods of patrolling, including motor and cycle patrols and the use of police boxes and wireless.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer is a contradiction of the statement made by the gentleman mentioned in the question—a gentleman who is daily in contact with the subject?

Sir G. COLLINS: The gentleman in question stated the causes of crime, and he gave no evidence to justify any such statement.

Mr. HARDIE: If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with the evidence given at that meeting will he take action in some way?

Sir G. COLLINS: I should be very glad to have the evidence from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. HARDIE: I will supply the evidence.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman also inquire into the effect of the Anomalies Act?

WATER SUPPLY (LERWICK).

Mr. KENNEDY: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered recent communications from the local authority in Lerwick, Shetland, regarding the water supply of that burgh; whether he is satisfied that the chemical filtration plant now in use is sufficient to provide the burgh with a pure and plentiful supply of water for domestic and other purposes; and whether he will refuse approval and financial sanction for an alternative sand filtration scheme on financial and other grounds?

Sir G. COLLINS: No recent official communications have been received from the town council. The chemical filtration plant is, I am advised, capable of providing the burgh with an adequate supply of wholesome water for domestic and other purposes. With regard to the last part of the question, in the event of any application being made, all aspects of the matter will be considered.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO.

Mr. DAY: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the resignation of the right hon. Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) as Minister without Portfolio, he proposes to appoint another Member of this House to fill this position in the Cabinet; and whether he will give particulars?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Islington, North (Colonel Goodman).

Mr. DAY: Was this Minister responsible for carrying out the Government's policy in connection with the Special Areas?

Mr. ROWSON: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount of salary paid to the Minister without Portfolio, now resigned, during his tenure of office?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The salary received by the Minister without Portfolio during the tenure of his office was £2,425 6s. 11d.

Mr. ROWSON: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confer with the Prime Minister with a view to issuing a White Paper setting out in detail the full results of the cerebral activities of the Noble Lord so that the House and the country may know what they have had for this money?

Mr. MORRISON: I do not propose to adopt that suggestion.

NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING ACT, 1934.

Captain P. MACDONALD: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement with regard to the negotiations now in progress with regard to Government approval and support for the laying down of a sister ship to the steamship "Queen Mary"?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Southwark Central (Mr. Day) on 31st March last.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

DEBT REDEMPTION.

Mr. MABANE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount applied to the redemption of debt, including statutory sinking funds, for the period 1st April, 1932, to 31st March, 1936?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The amount of cash applied out of revenue to the redemption of debt, including the statutory sinking funds, in the three years ending 31st March, 1935, was £52,854,000. For the result of the year just ended I must ask my hon. Friend to await my Budget speech.

INVESTMENTS (CONTROL).

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to carry out the Macmillan Report and establish a national investment board or take steps to bring about a national control of investments?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: His Majesty's Government do not propose to adopt these suggestions. The Macmillan Committee's Report does not, in fact, recommend either of them.

MOTOR CAR TAX (LOCAL NURSING ASSOCIATIONS).

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the exemption from the Road Fund taxation of small ears which are the property of local nursing associations and are used solely by the nurses for visiting patients in their specified areas, in view of the fact that ambulances are exempted from such taxation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I cannot see my way to exempt from taxation vehicles which are not by their nature restricted to the purpose in respect of which exemption is claimed.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: Can my right hon. Friend see any difference between a car which takes a nurse to a patient and an ambulance which takes a patient to a nurse?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I think there is a great difference.

AGRICULTURAL AND SHIPPING INDUSTRIES (EXCHEQUER PAYMENTS).

Mr. BATEY: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total

amount paid separately to the agricultural and the shipping industries from October, 1931, up to 31st March, 1936, or the latest available date?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: Exchequer payments to the agricultural industry during the period in question amounted approximately to £24,045,000. In addition it is estimated that the total deficiency payments under the Wheat Act, 1932, for the four cereal years ending on 31st July, 1936, will be £24,355,000. As regards the shipping industry, up to 31st March, 1936, approximately £2,000,000 was paid by way of subsidy to tramp shipping, and £495,00 was advanced for shipbuilding under Part II of the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935.

Mr. BATEY: Does that answer include anything for beet sugar? Is that exempted?

Mr. MORRISON: Those are the total amounts paid to the agricultural and shipping industries, in the terms of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY.

Dr. SCHACHT.

Mr. E. SMITH: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Herr Hjalmar Schacht has interviewed him or any of the officials of His Majesty's Treasury in the course of his visits to this country during the past few years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Dr. Schacht attended the World Economic Conference in London in 1933. Since that date neither I nor any of the officials of His Majesty's Treasury have had any interviews with him in the course of any visits which he may have paid to this country.

Mr. SMITH: Is it not a fact that Herr Schacht has, during the past year or two, visited prominent directors of the Bank of England, and prominent directors and financiers in the oil industry in this country?

LOANS.

Mr. E. SMITH: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total present indebtedness of banks, banking houses, and finance companies in the German Reich to British banks, banking houses, and finance companies; and on what conditions and what terms short or long, are the various sums in question owing?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: As the hon. Member will be aware, indebtedness of the kind to which he refers has been dealt with in the so-called Standstill Agreements between creditors and debtors, and not by inter-governmental agreements. Consequently, I am not in a position to give the information asked for.

Mr. SMITH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no further loans will be negotiated between this country and Germany?

Mr. GARRO-JONES: In view of the obviously vast importance of these figures in their connection with public policy, has not the right hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to apprise himself of their actual magnitude?

Mr. TINKER: Would the right hon. Gentleman reply to my hon. Friend's question about German loans—as to whether the Government intend to back such a loan?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not the question on the Paper. If any hon. Member wishes to ask that question, perhaps he will put it down.

Mr. SMITH: In view of the uneasiness that is being caused in the country in regard to the City of London having an influence on foreign policy, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to inform the House of the figures asked for in the question?

FOREIGN ISSUES (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).

Major HILLS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now make any further statement in regard to the restriction on foreign issues?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am very sensible of the loyalty with which those concerned have followed the general wishes which I have expressed in this matter. I have not at present in mind any radical alteration of the restriction, but I think the time has come when there should be an advisory committee to advise me from time to time both generally upon the scope of the restriction and also upon particular applications. I have been fortunate in securing the services of Lord Kennet as the chairman of this committee, and the following gentlemen

have also consented to assist me by serving upon it:

The Deputy Governor of the Bank of England,
Thomas Frazer, Esq.,
Sir Austin Harris, K.B.E.,
A. A. Jamieson, Esq., M.C.,
Lieut.-Colonel J. B. Neilson, C.M.G., D.S.O.,
R. P. Wilkinson, Esq.

The offices of the committee will be at 76, King William Street, E.C.4, and communications should be addressed to the secretary, Mr. A. E. Banham, at that address. The first meeting of the committee will take place after Easter. The matter being complicated I propose to give the committee detailed terms of reference and instructions, and I shall, with permission, circulate a copy in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Can my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that he will retain the ultimate control of the operations of this committee and that, consequently, during present conditions his responsibility to the House will be unimpaired?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I can give the most unqualified assurance in that respect. It will be only an advisory committee.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Will the terms of reference make it clear that the functions of the committee will cover new commitments only?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will see the Paper.

Mr. BOOTHBY: For the purpose of information to those desiring to issue foreign loans, will they have to apply direct to the committee or the Treasury?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: They will save time by applying direct to the committee.
Following are the terms of reference and instructions:

1. In June, 1932, the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked intending borrowers to refrain from making new issues while the conversion of the 5 per cent. War Loan was proceeding. That request in its general form was shortly afterwards withdrawn, its purpose having been fulfilled, but since that time restrictions of lesser though varying scope have been voluntarily accepted at the Chancellor's request and with the cooperation of the City of London. These restrictions were set up in the general


interest; and as the economic situation improved, it has been possible from time to time to relax them.
2. The only restriction now in force on issues, other than foreign issues, applies to the optional replacement of existing securities by new ones, if those securities rank as trustee securities and involve either underwriting or an invitation to the public to subscribe new cash; in such cases, intending borrowers are asked to approach the Treasury before the transaction is set in hand. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has however also asked that, with a view to co-ordinating the requirements of intending borrowers and so preventing congestion of the market, no issue ranking as a trustee security should be made without prior agreement with the Bank of England regarding the amount and date of the issue.
3. Foreign issues have been defined as issues on behalf of borrowers domiciled outside the Empire, or issues the proceeds of which would be remitted directly or indirectly to countries outside the Empire; but the expression also includes the acquisition from foreign holders of large blocks of securities, including securities dealt with on the London Stock Exchange, with a view to their sale in this country either by an issue to the public or otherwise. The wish of His Majesty's Government has been that, unless the Chancellor's permission had previously been obtained, no such issues or acquisition should be made.
4. The Chancellor has, however, announced that he would be ready to consider particular cases, especially those falling under the following heads:—

(a) sterling issues by a country within the sterling area where the loan is required to increase the sterling assets of that country and so to minimise fluctuations in the Exchanges;
(b) sterling issues on behalf of any borrower where the proceeds are calculated mainly to produce direct benefit to British industry.

5. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has now decided to appoint an Advisory Committee to advise him both on particular applications and, if occasion arises, on the principles which govern the restriction.
6. In their task the Committee will be guided in the first place by the general economic situation of the country.
7. The primary object of the present restrictions on foreign lending has been to protect sterling exchange against sudden and dislocating strains. In considering therefore what foreign long-term financing this country can undertake regard must be had not only to the volume of capital likely to be available for the purpose but also to the state of the exchanges and to the different kinds of pressure to which sterling may be exposed. Due allowance will of course be made for new issues on behalf of Empire borrowers, and the movement of international stock exchange securities between London and other markets must also be borne in mind.

8. These considerations would not generally apply to loans the proceeds of which would concurrently be used to finance additional exports from the United Kingdom. This fact has been recegnised by the Chancellor in his relaxation of the restriction on foreign lending in favour of sterling issues whose proceeds care calculated mainly to benefit British industry; and the same principle should govern the Committee's consideration of proposals of this nature.
9. The Committee will bear in mind the recommendation of the Committee on Finance and Industry (Section 384) that—"in the realm of foreign investment it is primarily towards British-owned enterprises abroad that we should wish to see our energies and capital turned rather than merely towards subscribing to foreign Government and municipal loans, which absorb our available foreign balance while doing little for our industry and commerce." In this connection account should be taken of the treatment accorded to British-owned enterprises by the foreign country concerned.
10. It is of equal importance that the capital required for development in the United Kingdom should not be restricted by excessive lending abroad.
11. In deciding whether considerations such as these at any moment admit of an increase or call for a decrease in the amount of foreign new issues the Committee should keep in close tough with the Treasury and with the Bank of England.
12. In accordance with the Chancellor's announcement the Committee should give favourable consideration to applications for sterling issues by a country within the sterling area where the loan is required to increase the sterling assets of that country and so to minimise fluctuations in the exchanges.
13. The applications to be considered by the Committee will include (a) the financing on behalf of foreign Governments, States or other public authorities, (b) offers of share or loan capital to the public which involve the remittance of funds directly or indirectly to any country outside the British Empire, (c) offers (involving such remittances) made otherwise than to the public in respect of which permission to deal may be sought from the Stock Exchange, (d) the acquisition of foreign holdings mentioned in paragraph 3 of this note.
14. With a view, however, to facilitating business it is desirable that the Committee should at an early date consider whether it can give general sanction subject to specified conditions for issues of particular types involving remittances abroad which are both small in themselves arid small in relation to the total issue.
15. In considering recommendations made by the Committee the Chancellor will where necessary take into account any financial or other questions which may be at issue between this country and the country of the borrower.


16. These instructions will be subject to review from time to time in the light of the experience gained and it would be open to the Committee if they so desire to submit any difficulties to the Chancellor for his consideration.
17. It should be clearly understood that any permission given by the Chancellor for the issue of a loan is governed exclusively by considerations of the kind above mentioned. The grant of permission does not in any sense imply any opinion as to the soundness of the investment from the point of view of the investor. That question is left exclusively for the market to judge.

FRANCE AND BELGIUM (WAR CLAIMS).

Mr. SEXTON: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what was the total sum of money paid by the British Government to all landowners in France as rent and compensation for the use of land for trenches and other military purposes during the Great War, 1914–19;

(2) what was the total sum of money paid by the British Government to all landowners in Belgium as rent and compensation for the use of land for trenches and other military purposes during the Great War, 1914–19?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No payments were made in the case either of France or of Belgium for the occupation of, or disturbance to, land in the battle area, whether for trenches or otherwise. Outside the battle area, payments were made of about £8,000,000 for billeting, rent., occupation of land, compensation for damage and similar claims in the case of France. In the case of Belgium certain payments of the kind were made; they were not large in amount, but the precise figure is no longer available.

Mr. SEXTON: Does that amount of money represent anything paid for cemeteries in France for the British dead; and, if so, how much?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Is it not a fact that the British Government, on entering the War, adopted the principle that their armies would pay all the expenses of the operations of the campaigns they were conducting; and has not this suggestion that rent was exacted for the trenches been a very prominent feature in the

slanders which have been made against France?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that that is so.

POSTAGE AND INSURANCE STAMPS (GUM).

Major MILNER: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction of the public and the Post Office officials with the quality of the gum in use on postage and insurance stamps; and whether he will arrange for a more adhesive gum and one less susceptible to climatic conditions to be provided in future?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): I am not aware of any general dissatisfaction with the gum used for postage and insurance stamps. The gum on postage stamps is required to be pure gum arable, and it is regularly tested both for quality and quantity to ensure that the standard required of the contractors is maintained.

Major MILNER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Leeds branch of the Association of Sub-Postmasters is of the opinion that the gum is not good, and will the hon. Gentleman himself have a test made?

Sir W. WOMERSLEY: I have seen reports in the Press that the Leeds sub-postmasters are not satisfied with the quality of the gum. We have had inquiries made and we are satisfied. One of the complaints is that the gum is not very nice to taste.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Is it the fact that the Government became unstuck last Wednesday night?

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE (REGULATIONS).

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: asked the Minister of Labour when the House of Commons may expect the new regulations relating to unemployment assistance?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): I cannot yet add to my previous replies on this subject.

Mr. ADAMS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he has had time enough?

Mr. BROWN: Nearly.

COST-OF-LIVING INDEX (INQUIRY).

Mr. BOOTHBY: asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to revise the basis of the cost-of-living index number?

Mr. E. BROWN: Yes, Sir. I have recently given further consideration to this matter and have decided that a revision of the basis of the cost-of-living index number should now be undertaken. For this purpose, it will be necessary to collect data with regard to the distribution of the main items of expenditure of working-class households at the present time. An inquiry of this character, on a scale sufficiently comprehensive to provide representative information covering different seasons of the year, cannot be completed before the end of next year. In the meantime, the cost-of-living index number will continue to be calculated on the existing basis, and I anticipate that the new index number can be so linked on to the previous numbers as to continue the series without a break. I should add that, as regards the methods to be adopted in the conduct of the inquiry, I hope to have the assistance of a small advisory committee, which will include representatives of employers and trade unions.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Can my right hon. Friend give us the names of the Advisory Committee and the terms of reference?

Mr. BROWN: I cannot give the names at the moment, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a question after Easter I will do so. I can however give the terms of reference, which are as follow:
To advise the Minister of Labour as to the methods to he adopted in the collection of information, by means of family budgets, showing the approximate average weekly expenditure of working-class families on the items which should be taken into account in the construction of index numbers, designed to measure the percentage changes, from month to month, in the cost of maintaining a present-day standard of living.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman let the House have them before next spring?

Mr. SILVERMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, pending the ascertainment of the new scales under this provision, he proposes to postpone the new regulations until he knows what is the true cost of living?

Mr. BROWN: No, they will be brought in in the spring.

Mr. HICKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there have been any representations either from organised workpeople or employers for a revision of the cost-of-living basis?

Mr. BROWN: I have had consultations with both.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the question of rent be included in the cost-of-living?

Mr. BROWN: That, of course, is one of the terms.

Mr. GALLACHER: Has the right hon. Gentleman any intention of revising the seasons?

ANGLO-EGYPTIAN CONVERSATIONS.

Mr. CARTLAND (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Dr. Ahmed Maher and Nekrashi Bey, members of the Egyptian delegation at present taking part in the Anglo-Egyptian conversations, were tried in March, 1926, for complicity in the murder and attempted murder of certain British and Egyptian subjects; and that on 2nd June, 1926, the High Commissioner, under authority from His Majesty's Government, informed the Prime Minister of Egypt that His Majesty's Government declined to accept the acquittal as proof of the innocence of the individual in question: and will he make a further statement on the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Viscount Cranborne): Yes, Sir. The facts as set out in my hon. Friend's present question are correct. I should, however, make it clear that, as my right hon. Friend stated yesterday, Dr. Ahmed Maher and Nekrashi Bey were not tried for complicity in the murder of Sir Lee Stack.

Mr. CARTLAND: While thanking my Noble Friend for the answer—and I accept, naturally, fully the facts as he has stated them to be—may I ask whether these facts were known to the Foreign Secretary when he accepted the personnel of the Egyptian delegation; and also whether he thinks that it is advisable that these men, in view of their record, should negotiate with His Majesty's Government?

Viscount CRANBORNE: Yes, Sir, the facts were known. It is quite obvious, I think, to the House that these facts are not a recommendation for any delegate, but, at the same time, I would point out that it is not the first time that these two, Dr. Ahmed Bey Maher and Nekrashi Bey, have been delegates in negotiation with the British Government, and they were so engaged in 1930.

Mr. DONNER: May I ask my Noble Friend whether there is any reason why the National Government should follow the footsteps of the Socialist Government, particularly when the methods of that Socialist Government ended in the failure of the negotiations?

Viscount CRANBORNE: I think it is the desire of Members in all parts of the House that these conversations should lead to a fair and lasting settlement between the two countries. I suggest that it would surely be unjustifiable to prejudice the success of these conversations by objections to two comparatively unimportant members of the delegation.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Does my Noble Friend really think that permanent goodwill between Great Britain and Egypt will be achieved by weakness in this particular case?

Viscount CRANBORNE: No, permanent goodwill will be achieved by the success of the conversations.

Mr. THURTLE: Are we to understand from the reply that the statements contained in the question yesterday to which exception was taken were in fact inaccurate, and that these two gentlemen were not charged with complicity for the murder of Sir Lee Stack? May I ask further, whether it is not a well-known principle of British law that men are considered innocent until they are proved guilty?

Viscount CRANBORNE: With regard to the first part of the question of the hon. Gentleman, I think the position is made perfectly clear by my answer. With regard to the second part of the question, it is true that these gentlemen were not proved guilty by an Egyptian court.

Mr. SANDYS: Is it not a fact that the only inaccuracy of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cart-land) was that he suggested that they were guilty of complicity in one murder instead of six?

HOUSE OF COMMONS (DURATION OF SPEECHES).

Mr. BAXTER: On a point of Order. I should be very grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you would give to me and some of my hon. Friends guidance in respect of something that came out in yesterday's Vote of Censure Debate. When the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was putting the case for the Opposition he pointed to these benches and referred to the lack of support given to the Government by private Members during the Debate. I and many others were very anxious to express our approval of the policy of the Government in connection with Italy and Abyssinia. May I give a brief résumé of the Debate yesterday? There were, approximately, 357 minutes devoted to the Vote of Censure, eliminating the strange interlude when one of the Socialist ex-Ministers drew attention to certain Welsh affairs. Of those 357 minutes, Members of the Government Front Bench occupied 86 minutes. The Opposition, including the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), occupied 175 minutes, and Privy Councillors and the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) took 82 minutes, while Conservative back benchers—those of us who are in a majority because the electorate of the country wished us to be in a majority—took only 14 minutes. It is impossible for us to give a proper impression to the country of the real feeling of the House in those circumstances, and I would ask for your guidance as to how we may speak for the rights of the majority.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member raises a grievance which I have often heard before, namely, that too much time is occupied by other than back benchers. Whether that is the case or not, I should not like to say, but I do not see how the difficulty can be overcome.

Mr. BAXTER: May I say one word more? One private Member on the back benches opposite spoke for 45 minutes, which I think is too long.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. EMMOTT: Is not the really important thing the weight of argument, and not the time taken to deploy it?

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS.

Mr. PARKER: I beg to move:
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the power of a court of summary jurisdiction to order a child to be whipped.
I, and many other hon. Members, feel that birching is an undesirable part of the penal code. It is almost dying out in practice among parents and also in schools, and even when it is thought necessary to administer some form of corporal punishment, birching is no longer thought to be the most suitable form of corporal punishment. To-day, birching is very rare in any State-aided schools and increasingly so in the public schools; I mean those private foundations which are called public schools. It is still the custom in one or two of the bigger schools, particularly Eton, but we should not allow the fact that we have so many representatives of that school in this House to prejudice our judgment on this subject. To-day, only the very rich still feel a strong desire to preserve the right of buying the very doubtful privilege of birching for their offspring. We do not feel that we can follow the example of Eton on this subject. As on many other subjects, what Eton thinks to-day England thought yesterday. On this subject the ordinary decent Englishman's view ought to be adopted, and that is that birching should be abolished.
My second point is that any form of corporal punishment is undesirable in this particular case. I do not think that corporal punishment is undesirable in the school or in the home. It may be desirable to punish idleness or disobedience, but it is different in a home from what it is in a police court. Offences in the home or in school arc offences against discipline, but offences punishable in the police courts are definitely offences against morals. That makes a very great difference. In the school an offence against morals is punishable not by corporal punishment but by expulsion. To-day, we have this peculiar position either that the child may be punished twice, in the police court and at home, or else the parents may disagree with the punishment administered by the court, in which case the child is made a hero at home. That has a very undesirable effect both on the parent and the child. Certain cases were brought before the House when this matter was discussed before.

It was suggested that when children mutilate animals, birching is a desirable punishment. It is not. If serious cases of that kind are brought up, birching is not the right punishment. It is not a serious enough punishment because once the birching is over the child returns to the streets and nothing is done to correct the unfortunate influence under which it has acted. We believe that where you have a child who commits a crime of that sort it should be subjected to some sort of treatment, so that it will not do that sort of thing again. It should be examined medically, and if necessary sent to a Home Office school and treated. There is nothing romantic about a Home Office school or probation, but there is something romantic about a child being whipped. When it is whipped in a police court it becomes a hero, and is inclined to show off before its family and its friends. Then more often than not the child comes back into the court.
There has been a very big decline in the number of birchings. In 1913 the number was 2,079, in 1930 it was 130, and in 1933 it was 151. Birching has declined largely because magistrates have not found it effective. We have to-day the unfortunate position that children are treated very differently in various parts of the country. There was a case recently at Newport where a child was ordered to be birched, but it was found that there was no birch available for the purpose. Therefore, the child had to be kept waiting for seven days while a birch was obtained and soaked in brine, and by the time the birch was ready the child had become ill through thinking about what was going to happen, and no birching took place. That sort of thing happens when you have courts acting in different ways in different parts of the country.
Many people say that it is necessary to enforce birching because of the increase in juvenile crime. To begin with, it is necessary to examine that question fully. There has been a very big decrease in juvenile crime from the War up to 1930. Between 1917 and 1929 the number of juvenile convictions decreased from 27,290 to 5,936. There has been an increase of convictions since that day, and to my mind that increase has been due to widespread unemployment amongst juveniles of 14 to 21. When there is much unemployment you have an in-


crease in crime and an unfortunate example set to younger children. The right way to secure a decrease in that crime is partly by raising the school age; partly by providing better recreation facilities for children and young persons oved 14, especially in the way of clubs, playing fields and so on; and partly by placing new industries in the depressed areas so as to find employment for young people.
Experience has shown that birching has not been effective as a deterrent. The report on juvenile delinquency by the Board of Education Juvenile Organisations Committee states, after a study of four particular towns, that 25 per cent. of the children submitted to birching came before the court again in a month and that within two years 80.34 per cent. returned. That clearly proves that there is no case for birching as a deterrent. The House of Commons has very effectively shown its views on this subject. In 1932, when the Children and Young Persons Act was introduced, the then Under-Secretary for the Home Office supported a Clause to the same effect as this Bill. The Second Reading of that Bill was passed without a Division. An Amendment was later proposed but was not even voted on. On the Report stage

there was no opposition, nor was there on the Third Reading. In fact it was not even challenged in this House. An Amendment from the other place was disagreed to without a Division, and it was only when that Amendment was sent back a second time that the Under-Secretary for Home Affairs in order to save the whole of the Bill, agreed to the Amendment. It is not usual to bring up the same subject twice in the same Parliament. But this is a new Parliament and it is only right that the House should now have an opportunity to reaffirm its views and to give a considered and straight vote on this issue. I hope, therefore, that I may have leave to bring in the Bill.

Mr. RADFORD: I wish to oppose the Motion. I am not going to inflict a speech on the House, and I wish only to quote one passage in the hon. Member's speech, in which he said that he was even in favour of the abolition of any corporal punishment of children who had mutilated and tortured little animals. That alone would damn the Bill in my eyes.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 166.

Division No. 143.]
AYES.
[4.5 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Garro-Jones, G. M.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Messer, F.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Milner. Major J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Groves, T. E.
Montague, F.


Anderson, F. (Whihtehaven)
Guy, J. C. M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Banfield, J, W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.


Barnes, A. J.
Hardie, G. D.
Parkinson, J. A


Batey, J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Potts, J.


Benson, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Price, M. P.


Bernays, R. H.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Quibell, J. D.


Bevan, A.
Hicks, E. G.
Rickards, G. W. (Sklpton)


Buchanan, G.
Holland, A.
Riley, B.


Cape, T.
Hollins, A.
Ritson, J.


Cassells, T.
Hopkin, D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Charleton, H. C.
Jagger, J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Chater, D.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Rowson, G.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sanders, W, S.


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Sexton, T. M.


Compton, J.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, A.


Daggar, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T,
Silverman, S. S.


Dalton, H.
Kirkwood. D.
Simpson, F. B.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lathan, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lee, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leonard, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Stephen, C.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maclean, N.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ghfn-le-Sp'ng)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Thurtle, E.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Marklew, E.
Viant, S. P.


Foot, D. M.
Marshall, F.
Walker, J.


Gallacher, W.
Mathers, G.
Watkins, F. C.




Watson, W. McL.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Welsh, J. C.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


White, H. Graham
Williams, T. (Don Valley)



Whiteley, W.
Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wilkinson, Ellen
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Mr. Parker and Mr. Tinker.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Eckersley, P. T.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Emery, J, F.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)


Albery, I. J.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Munro, P.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Everard, W. L.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Findlay, Sir E.
Peake, O.


Apsley, Lord
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Penny, Sir G.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Ganzonl, Sir J.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Gledhill, G.
Plugge, L. F.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Glucksteln, L. H.
Porritt, R. W.


Blair, Sir R.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Pownall, Sir A. Assheton


Bossom, A. C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Procter, Major H. A.


Bowater. Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ramsden Sir E.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Grimston, R. V.
Rathbone. J. R. (Bodmin)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hannah, I. C.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Harbord, A.
Remer, J. R.


Bull, B. B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Butler, R. A.
Harvey, G.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rowlands, G.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Cary, R. A.
Hepworth, J.
Salmon, Sir I.


Cautley, Sir H. S.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Samuel, Sir A, M. (Farnham)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Sandys, E. D.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hopkinson, A.
Scott, Lord William


Christie, J. A.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Selley, H. R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Shepperson, sir E. W.


Clarke, F. E.
Hulbert, N. J.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Hunter, T.
Somerset, T.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Jackson, Sir H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
James, Wing-Commander, A. W.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Kerr, J. G. (Scottish Universities)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


courtauld, Major J. S.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Tate, Mavis C.


Critchley, A.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crooke, J. S.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Lees-Jones. J.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Cross, R. H.
Lennox Boyd. A. T. L.
Touche, G. C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Levy, T.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lewis, O.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Culverwell, C. T.
Liddall, W. S.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Davies Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.
Warrender, Sir V.


De la Bère, R.
Mac Andrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Wells, S. R.


Donner, P. W.
McKie, J. H.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Maitland, A.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wise, A. R.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Markham, s. F.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wragg, H.


Duggan, H. J.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)



Duncan, J. A. L.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
TELLERS FOR THR NOES.—




Mr. Radford and Mr. Petherick.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTION) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, 24th April, and to be printed. [Bill 86.]

RETAIL MEAT DEALERS (SUNDAY CLOSING) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, 1st May, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

BILLS REPORTED.

BRENTFORD AND CHISWICK CORPORATION BILL,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

DALTON-IN-FURNESS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

CIVIL LIST.

Leave given to the Select Committee to report their Observations.

Report, with an Appendix, brought up, and read.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Bill, with Amendments.

That they have passed a Bill intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor Aldermen and Citizens of the City of Winchester to acquire the water undertaking of the Winchester Water and Gas Company; to authorise the said Mayor Aldermen and Citizens to supply water in and in the neighbourhood of their city; and for other purposes." [Winchester Corporation Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the County Council of the County of East Lothian to control the seashore and lands adjoining the same within the said County; and for other purposes."[East Lothian County Council Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Company to construct new works and to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to alter the terms upon which sewage from certain areas comprised within the Magor and St. Melons Rural District is received and disposed of by the Rhymney Valley

Sewerage Board; and for other purposes." [Rhymney Valley Sewerage Board Bill [Lords.]

Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the South Suburban Gas Company; and for other purposes." [South Suburban Gas Bill [Lords.]

And also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company; and for other purposes."[North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Bill [Lords.]

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (AGRICULTURE) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]

WINCHESTER CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

EAST LOTHIAN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords].

RICKMANSWORTH AND UXBRIDGE VALLEY WATER BILL [Lords].

RHYMNEY VALLEY SEWERAGE BOARD BILL [Lords].

SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL [Lords].

NORTH METROPOLITAN ELECTRIC POWER SUPPLY BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — SUGAR INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION) BILL.

Order real for resuming adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [2nd April] on Consideration of Bill as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Which Amendment was, in Clause 28 (Annual Report) in page 28, line 27, after "Corporation," to insert:

"(including a balance sheet and a profit and loss account)."—[Mr. Elliot.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

4.13 p.m.

The Minister of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): This Amendment is designed to meet the position that the Opposition took up during the Committee stage, when they made a demand for further details. The Amendment goes a long way to meet that demand. It is true that it does not cover the depreciation point, but I will undertake, if it meets the Opposition's desire, that that will be dealt with in the rules. I think it will be more suitably dealt with in that way than in the Statute. The matter is somewhat detailed and a certain amount of alteration may be necessary, but in the rules we should give the total expenditure on fixed capital up to the beginning of the year, the expenditure on fixed capital up to the end of the year, the total amount allowed for depreciation up to the beginning of the year, the amount to be allowed for depreciation in the year and a net figure showing the written-down value of the fixed capital. That fully covers the depreciation account and we have covered the profit and loss account and the balance-sheet in the Amendment. The only point left is the trading point. It would not be possible to meet the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) and his friends on that, but the Minister has full power to get such information as he wishes to have. Of course the Minister is responsible to the House. As to the trading account, it is doubtful whether the publication of such an account as is prescribed under the Provident Societies Act at present would serve any useful purpose, and since I have met the desires of the Opposition I hope they will accept the Amendment.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I had intended to move an Amendment to the Minister's Amendment, but after his explanation I do not propose to do so. He has made a considerable advance towards meeting our request in the inclusion of a provision for a profit and loss account, and also by the suggestion that in the rules to be made he will prescribe certain lines along which information must be given as to the depreciation account. I hope we shall have some guidance as to what is going to be the starting point of values upon which depreciation takes place. Are you going to take fixed stock from the date of the incorporation of the new amalgamated concerns or are you going to include in the depreciation account any reference at all to the original cost? That, of course, is a matter for consideration. Having regard to the fact that a large proportion of these fixed assets have been subsidised out of public funds, it will be necessary for the Minister to know the actual position.
As regards the trading account, I would ask the Minister to consider that as he is setting up what is virtually a closed monopoly, because no one believes that any new licences are going to be granted whilst there is an output capacity of 4,000,000 lbs. and a consumption of only 2,200,000 lbs., the public are not protected unless some trading account is furnished for their information through the Ministry, which will prevent a misleading account of the profit and loss position by a manipulation of stock values. If you are going to get a trading account such as is necessary for the purpose of Income Tax there is no further question. I am grateful that we have at least this concession, that we are going to get some measure of information, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will also consider further the question of information regarding stocks being furnished in the trading account.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 29.—(Power to make rules.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. FOOT.

In page 28, line 33, leave out front "Act," to "and," in line 35.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I observe that an Amendment on this point has been put on the Order Paper by the Minister of Agriculture. I should have preferred my own Amendment, but there is no doubt that the Minister's Amendment does meet the point which we have in mind and, therefore, in order to meet the convenience of the House, I do not propose to move my Amendment.

4.20 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I beg to move: in page 28, line 34, to leave out "or are in his opinion necessary or desirable," and to insert:
and for such consequential or supplementary matters as may be necessary.
The Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), which he has just withdrawn, drew attention to the language of Clause 29 in relation to the rule-making power of the Minister. A great deal is to be done under this Bill by the mechanism of the Minister making rules. Special provision is made for the purpose for which these rules have to be made, and I think that every possible purpose is specifically covered. Having regard to the complicated character of the Bill it was thought desirable to make provision for the possibility of further procedure rules being required for "any such consequential or supplementary matters," and it is for that purpose that the Amendment is moved. I agree that the words in the Bill are probably too wide for that purpose.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. FOOT: We desire to thank the Lord Advocate and the Minister of Agriculture for meeting the point we had in mind in our Amendment, but I should like to take this opportunity of saying that such Amendments really ought not to be necessary. As the Clause stood the Minister himself was the sole judge of the need for or the validity of any rule which was made under the Bill. We have been familiar with Clauses of this kind in Government Bills in the last few years. There is the conclusive evidence Clause, which occurs in a large number of existing Statutes and which has been condemned in most emphatic terms by the Committee on Ministers' Powers. There is a provision which says that "rules or regulations shall have effect as if they were enacted in the Act," a provision about

which some of our Judges have expressed themselves in strong terms. In the present Bill we have the same provision in a new form of words. It would have made it exceedingly difficult for the validity of any rule which was purported to be made under this Bill to be challenged in the courts. We hope it will be clearly understood by those who are responsible for the drafting of Bills which come before this House, that there are some hon. Members who make it their business to keep a look-out for this form of Clause and who will challenge it on every future occasion.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 32.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. BARNES: I beg to move, in page 30, line 39, to leave out from "him" to the end of line 40.
In Committee there was some doubt as to the definition of the words "refiner of sugar" and also the word "premises." The Minister undertook to look into this matter before Report stage, and I should like to know whether he has done so.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: I beg to second the Amendment.
There is still a difficulty here which is unresolved. The Minister has given considerable attention to this matter and we are grateful to him for having done so, but there is still a section of sugar users who have a grievance. The Minister in Committee pointed out that it might be possible for a refiner of sugar by making an amalgamation with a confectioner to contract out of the terms of the Bill. That is very unlikely to take place, and if it did I think it could be easily dealt with under the Bill. I do not know whether manufacturing users of sugar wish to be put in a privileged Position. They are not called upon to meet the same liabilities as a firm like Tate & Lyle, but the real difficulty here is in the definition of the word "premises."
The special case of sugar users is this: It is not a question of a central refinery; there is no contention upon that point; but if I am a sugar manufacturing user, manufacturing in my own constituency in Birkenhead and also it Liverpool, I cannot see that there is any sense in my having to manufacture in one of the premises and not being able to use the sugar so refined in the other. The


Minister has shown generosity in dealing with the manufacturing users up to this point, and I hope he will be a little more generous and meet them in this respect. I am told that there is a factory in London whose premises are cut into by a road, a canal and a railway. Why should these people be under the necessity, if they wish to use the manufactured sugar, of having a refinery in each of these premises? The Minister gave us an assurance that it was intended to administer the Bill reasonably. We needed no assurance on that point, we expected nothing else, but I would ask him, if he is not able to make this concession, to go into the matter with those particularly concerned, because I am sure he is anxious that the Bill when it comes into operation should start with the maximum good will on the part of all concerned.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: It is true, as the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Barnes) and the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. Graham Whitely said, that I undertook to look into several matters between the Committee stage and the Report stage, and I think the Amendments that I have put down indicate that these promises have been kept as far as it was possible to do so. Yesterday I saw the Chairman of the Sugar-Using Manufacturers' Committee and discussed this matter with him. I was not able to find a form of words which was more satisfactory than the form we have here. To begin with, I looked into the question of premises, and there is no wider word that we could possibly use. If there were an extension it would give rise to exactly the difficulty mentioned by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East, that of contracting out of the Bill altogether. The hon. Member asked why, if one factory is on one side of a river and another factory on the other side, the sugar cannot be moved from one to the other; but he will agree that if that were possible, it would be very difficult to draw the line as to the points between which sugar could not be moved.
This Amendment is designed to assist the working of the Bill. It is by nature a concession, and like all concessions it has the effect of producing a new set of difficulties a, little further along. I think we are entitled to claim that we are meeting those difficulties, because the

words we have used are treated by the sugar-using manufacturers as a genuine attempt to meet the real difficulties they encounter. Since this is the most satisfactory form of words which we have been able to find, I hope the House will allow the Clause to pass with the assurance that I will deal with the matter as reasonably as possible and that if in practice it is found to raise difficulties, I shall certainly not hesitate to try to meet those difficulties at some further stage.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Amalgamation of companies manufacturing sugar from home-grown beet.)

4.33 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 33, line 20, column 2, to leave out "Cupar, Fifeshire."
I know I shall have to give very substantial reasons in order to satisfy the Minister that these words ought to be omitted from the Schedule. As one Scotsman to another, I know that his loyalty and devotion to his fatherland or motherland, whichever he terms it, will be sufficiently strong to make him try to keep in being what has been proved to be a wholly uneconomic factory from its conception. Our reason for moving this Amendment is not to attack Scotland, but to safeguard the Treasury, and I hope the House will appreciate that that is our motive. I understand that the majority of the factories already in existence are running anywhere between three and five months in the year, according to the amount of sugar which they refine, and even a factory running for five months in the year requires a considerable subsidy from the Treasury to enable it to carry on business. So far the Cupar factory has run for only about 10 days in each year and has, therefore, been completely uneconomic. Hence the failure of the owners to liquidate their liabilities to the Treasury.
It seems to me that the new Corporation ought not to be burdened with this factory. The farmers do not produce sugar beet and the factory cannot, therefore, turn the beet into sugar. Consequently the factory is closed down for nearly 51 weeks in the year. I remember that the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) during the early stages of


this Measure, and during the discussion of previous Measures dealing with sugar beet, told an extraordinary story of the quantity of labour required for the production of the beet, the transport, the working of the machinery and the performance of the multiplicity of functions connected therewith. He almost made the House believe at that time that if the sugar beet industry went by the board, East Fife would become a special area. The facts of the situation are entirely against the hon. Member. At the big mass meeting he held, there were obviously present many people who were engaged neither in the production nor the transforming of beet into refined sugar.
The simple fact is that this Cupar factory cannot obtain the requisite amount of sugar beet to enable it to run at a profit. If the Cupar factory remains part of the Corporation, it will be a perpetual burden on the Corporation, and if the Corporation has to be bolstered up by Treasury finance, including a reasonable profit for those who own the factory, it seems fairly clear that this factory ought not to be retained. For those reasons, and for reasons of sound Treasury finance, I hope the Minister, despite his homeland predilections, will see the wisdom of accepting this Amendment and allowing the factories which come within the Corporation to make the best of their efficiency, and to secure annually that 1½ per cent. extra dividend because of the efficiency they bring into the industry.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am sure the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) regards this Amendment as being rather in the nature of a forlorn hope. I think nothing more curious has been seen since the famous reinforcement of ghillies which came up at the end of the Battle of Bannockburn than the reinforcement from the benches opposite for lower expenditure by the Treasury. I fear, however, that the outcome will not be the same on this occasion, because the first was a movement in favour of the Scots and this is a movement against them. I am sure the hon. Member will not expect us to admit that it is impossible for us to obtain efficiency in Scotland in the growing of sugar beet.

Mr. QUIBELL: We believe it is.

Mr. ELLIOT: Naturally the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) believes it is, because he is very keen to extinguish the industry in Scotland. It must be remembered that the sugar beet industry in England went through an experimental stage of trial and error, and that in its initial stages it was subjected to the same objections on technical grounds as the sugar beet factory in Scotland is now subjected to. We in Scotland do not wish to see any more of our industries extinguished and taken South of the border. I would ask the hon. Member for Don Valley further to consider that this Amendment would completely extinguish the hope of any other distant area—a Welsh area, for instance—obtaining a factory at any future time. We have been pressed very strongly for factories elsewhere, and one was recommended by Lord Portal in the report on the distressed areas. It may in future be possible to develop the industry in areas where it is not now developed, but in the initial stages the industry is bound to be of an experimental character, and in those areas will bring by no means the same economic return as can be obtained by factories in the East of England, where there is skilled labour and where the factories have had long years of running experience. That is no reason why people who are working towards that position should be moved out of the industry. On all those grounds I would ask hon. Members not to accept the Amendment which was so plausibly moved.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: As this particular factory has been working approximately 10 days each year since it was established, has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe from his experience and his conversations with the farmers and factory owners that the farmers concerned are likely in the future to produce the requisite quantity of sugar beet to make the factory a going concern?

Mr. ELLIOT: I would point out that I have the same desire for economy as the hon. Member and we have been reducing the rates for sugar beet in Scotland; but thre is every reason to believe that last year's acreage will be maintained and even exceeded this year. The acreage of something like 7,800 acres is by no means negligible, and there is every reason for supposing that the Scottish


growers will be able to maintain that acreage.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: I agree with the very reasonable remarks made by the Minister. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was wise in pointing out that the Amendment he moved is not intended as an attack on Scotland, for had it been conceived as such, the results might have been disastrous! The hon. Member put forward his case as being one of defending the Treasury, and I want to deal with that aspect. I would point out that the sugar beet subsidy is not given from the State for nothing. It is something that is offered to the farmers of Scotland and other areas to enable them to maintain an industry, and the farmers must respond to that assistance. The next two or three years will be a testing time for the Scottish farmers, and I shall not stand here to defend my constituents in two years' time if they and others in Scotland fail to make the necessary response. During the last two years, very definite efforts have been made and there has been evidence that, given the right conditions, Scottish farmers will increase their acreage. As the hon. Member for Don Valley knows, and as the Report of the Sugar Beet Commission and other authorities have pointed out, the main difficulty in Scotland, from the North to the South, is the distance of various farmers from the factories.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Surely the hon. Member knows perfectly well that in very large parts of. Scotland, including the whole of the North-East, it is absolutely impossible under any conditions for the farmers to grow sugar beet. Why should the hon. Members' constituents and no-one else get a subsidy out of this?

Mr. STEWART: My hon. Friend is talking without the necessary knowledge. Sugar beet is grown even in the North.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The hon. Member has accused me of not knowing what I am talking about. I challenge him to tell me of any parts of the whole northeastern area, Forfarshire, Aberdeenshire, Banffshire and up to Moray and Nairn, where sugar beet can, under any circumstances, be profitably grown?

Mr. STEWART: The hon. Member shows a still further lack of knowledge. In Forfarshire they have been growing sugar beet for many years and as far as Moray there are farmers growing sugar beet. In fact, less than 45 per cent. of the sugar beet grown in Scotland is grown in Fife, and more than half is grown outside of Fife. My hon. Friend ought not to worry, for it may be the time will come when his farmers will find it profitable to grow sugar beet. I want to point out that it is possible for farmers as far north as the Black Isle to meet the reasonable condition which the right hon. Gentleman suggested to the House was necessary. Distance has been the difficulty, but two years ago there was introduced the "free on rail" method and the effect was instantaneous. The area was quadrupled and since then has steadily extended. Last year there were 1,280 growers who produced 7,800 acres, and I am advised by those responsible for the industry in Scotland that this year they expect 1,800 growers to produce 12,000 acres. Last year there would have been many more acres but for the restriction on area imposed by this House. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) and in other constituencies hundreds and maybe thousands of additional acres would have been growing beet, but for the definite instruction of this House that the area was to be limited.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Does not that restriction remain?

Mr. STEWART: It is not the fault of the producers or of the beet sugar factories. If there is any fault in that decision it is the fault of the House. I do not ask any more than that the Scottish growers, in these new conditions, should have an opportunity to show their paces and to justify their hopes. There is nothing whatever wrong with the Cupar factory. It is as economic and works as well as any other and the beet grown in Scotland has proved as valuable as any other. All we ask is that this new Bill shall not rule out of account the possibility of Scottish farmers justifying themselves in the years to come. I would remind hon. Members opposite that Lord Snowden when, as Mr. Snowden, he introduced the scheme, made it clear that


it was a measure intended to help agriculture throughout the country.

Mr. QUIBELL: He did not introduce it.

Mr. STEWART: Hon. Members opposite need not quibble about it. It. was started by Lord Snowden when he sat on this side above the Gangway.

HON. MEMBERS: No.!

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman must know that the Labour party never introduced that Bill.

Mr. STEWART: I did not say so.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member has now for the "umpteenth" time made a statement of that kind. He must know that the first Bill to deal with sugar beet was introduced by the present Lord Halifax when he was Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. STEWART: The hon. Member is wasting tile time of the House and is quibbling. The first Government announcement of an intention to introduce a subsidy was made by Lord Snowden when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Labour Government and it was his scheme, his plan, his draft Bill, which was adopted by the next Government.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Mr. ALEXANDER rose—

Mr. STEWART: No, I will not give way again. If any party is responsible for this so-called calamity, this utter waste of money as it has been described, hon. Members opposite are responsible for it. They ought not to attempt to ride away from that responsibility. But I would remind them that their own scheme was intended to develop agriculture as a whole over the entire country and every statement made by every Minister since has emphasised the national character of the Measure. I only ask that that feature of the proposals should be recognised in this House and should be continued as a vital characteristic of the scheme.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) always speaks with a great deal

of confidence as though he alone knew the facts of the situation. He does not hesitate to challenge facts given by hon. Members for other constituencies in relation to those constituencies as he did just now in the case of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), but when he is asked to give way to permit of a correction he is careful not to do so. The inconsistencies of the hon. Member have been amazing. He gave us no support when, in previous stages, we moved Amendments seeking to ensure that the subsidy in future should not be restricted to the existing acreage. He knows that we moved Amendments to try to meet the situation for the farmers over wide areas. We said that if the Government were prepared to lay down the maximum amount to be spent in a given year, they ought to have a scheme similar to that in the Wheat Act, under which the benefit would be spread over the whole country. But the hon. Member never gave us any support and it is no use for him to argue now that the farmers in Fifeshire are to be given a Heaven-sent chance—

Mr. STEWART: In Scotland. There are only 46 per cent. in Fife and 54 per cent. in the rest of Scotland.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I do not propose to argue with the hon. Member on that point but the fact remains that the Bill definitely limits the acreage and that the hon. Member has refused, so far, to support us in seeking to have the acreage extended. Yet he comes here to-day and talks about the encouragement which is to be given, and about testing the farmers to see whether they are going to support the scheme or not. The hon. Member's arguments are completely inconsistent. But when he proceeds to talk about the responsibility for introducing an uneconomic subsidy then his history is lamentably short of the facts. He ought to know that as far back as 1922 the then Coalition Government was paying a subsidy of 25s. 8d. per cwt.—two years before there was ever a Labour Government in this country. But it is convenient for the hoc. Member to forget that.

Mr. STEWART: That is not accurate. I repeat what I said before, namely, that the first Government scheme, properly


considered, fully examined and officially stated, was that announced by the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Now let us have the facts. The facts are that the industry was only in operation in one factory before the War; that subsequently another factory was opened; that in the course of War developments, it became necessary, in the view of the then Government, to subsidise it; that there were negotiations by the Government of the day which finally led to a subsidy of 25s. 8d. per cwt. or far more than 100 per cent. of the value, even at the high prices of sugar then prevailing. Then there was a hiatus of 12 or 15 months because of the action of the Government—I think the Government of 1922–23. In 1924 the then Labour Government, under pressure, said that the position was such, as a consequence of economies effected by the previous Government, that something would have to be done. Then a Bill was introduced in 1925 by the present Lord Halifax and my hon. Friends on these benches opposed that Bill at all stages because it was inadequate to meet the situation and did not make those provisions in the public interests which we believed should attach to the granting of a public subsidy. Those are the facts and they are to he found in the records of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: If so, I think we had better leave it at that.

Mr. ALEXANDER: As a Member with some little experience may I, Mr. Speaker, express my thanks to you for your courtesy and kindness in allowing me to reply to the irrelevancies of the hon. Member for East Fife. With regard to the Amendment, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has given the main reasons why we move to leave out the reference to the Cupar factory. It is uneconomic and the hon. Member for East Fife gave us no hope that enough beet would be grown in Scotland to keep the factory open for more than ten days in a year. The Minister twitted my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) as to his designs on the Brigg factory in the future. It would be much better to have the beet available for that area where it can be economically dealt with than to keep a factory at Cupar open for ten days in the year.
Moreover, the climatic factor is an important one. I agree that there are certain areas where considerable success has been achieved in regard to sugar content but it is not the general experience that Scotland can compete with other districts in regard to sugar beet production and that is because of climatic conditions. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen admits that in a large part of Scotland the economic production of sugar beet is not possible. It would be much better, in my opinion, to leave this provision out of the Schedule and toy give the hon. Member for East Aberdeen an opportunity of getting a subsidy for-Scottish oats instead of a subsidy for sugar beet. I have never noticed, however, that either the Minister of Agriculture or the Secretary of State for Scotland showed any willingness to give way to the hon. Member in his great campaign for a subsidy on oats.
The other point we have to make is this: This is one of the factories which have been under the Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation whose history we do not at all like. That particular group have been instrumental in looking after their own interests in the course of the negotiations for the amalgamation of the companies into one large corporation. They have got, in the view of many people, far more than they ought to have got out of the principle of that amalgamation. They have, apparently, insisted that the shares should be allocated not on the basis of the real value of the assets which they were transferring to the Corporation but on the basis of output. That output has been built up in the last few years, not by manufacturing sugar from sugar beet but by refining sugar from imported raw sugar at a loss, creating thereby a demand on their part for a quota of output which was fictitious. They are getting a transfer now of shares in the amalgamation which is considered, in many quarters, to be unjust and unfair. In regard to that point, it is apposite for us to test the feeling of the House by moving to leave out of the Schedule reference at least to that one of the factories controlled by the Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation which is obviously uneconomic and is not likely to become economic because of the difficulties of producing sugar beet in Scotland.

4.58 p.m.

Major COURTAULD: I should have been inclined to support this Amendment if it had not been for the Minister's statement that it would preclude the possiblity of setting up factories in the future, in other distant areas. Listening to the Debate I felt that we in the South were extremely unlucky that the Minister of Agriculture was not born in, say, Sussex. There is a sort of freemasonry among Scotsmen, and those of us who come from more remote places like Sussex or Wales feel that we have not the same opportunities as appear to be available in Scotland. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) said that the area of production in his part of Scotland had increased when the producers were given the benefit of the "free on rail" method. The same thing would have happened in other areas of the British Isles if producers there had had the same benefit. We in Sussex have been fighting continually against the difficulties of long haulage and of having to deliver our beet, perhaps 100 miles away, to the factories which put us, as producers—I refer to the farmers in the district which I represent—at a great disadvantage.
I have had an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that he will make it his business to see that the Sugar Commission will look after the interests of Sussex farmers and also of other farmers who are affected. Scottish farmers do not need any assurance of that sort, because they are actually looked after in the Bill. Before the Bill finally leaves the House, I am in hopes that we shall get something more definite which will justify those of us who have supported the Bill in general through all its stages until to-day in supporting it to the end. I will not now try to go into the whole subject of the difficulties of the growers or the future of the growers in the more distant parts of England. I hope to be able to do so to better advantage at a later stage, but if this preference is to be given to Scottish farmers, and if this Amendment is to be rejected, it is a very strong argument in favour of giving equally fair treatment to other and more distant parts of the country.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. BOOTHBY: My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) is very often so very sure that

he knows all about everything, and that nobody else knows anything about anything, that I am bound to say that, while I do not oppose this proposition to have a factory at Cupar and would not vote for the Amendment, it is better that we should get the facts right. I would point out to the hon. Member for East Fife that I have been a Member of this House some years longer than he has. I remember very well the of origin of this whole sugar beet business, and I can say without the least hesitation that as far as the facts are concerned the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) is right and ray hon. Friend the Member for East Fife is wrong. The first practical proposition presented to this House was put up by the Minister of Agriculture, then Mr. Edward Wood, and I remember great opposition developing to it, not only from the Labour party, but even more vehemently from the Liberal party, and particularly from Sir Herbert Samuel. That Bill was fought at every stage. I myself was doubtful of the Bill at the time, and I am still doubtful of the whole principle of subsidising sugar, of which there is a world glut at the present time, especially in view of the interests of our West Indian Colonies, but, of course, I should not be in order in developing that point.
It must be borne in mind in this connection that there is in Scotland a very large number of rich, prosperous farms, stretching right across the North-East from round about Stonehaven, North and West to Inverness, covering the counties of Aberdeen, Banff, Moray, and Nairn—one of the richest and test tracts of agricultural country in the world, in which it is absolutely impossible to grow either sugar beet or wheat at remunerative prices, and always will be impossible, owing to soil and climatic conditions. I want to say on behalf of those farmers, some of whom I represent, and who produce the best meat in the world, that it is hard on them that the farmer who is capable of growing wheat and beet should be heavily subsidised, and therefore should be able to spend so much more money in cattle production and mutton production and so on, whereas our farmers in that area, who represent a great part of the agricultural community in Scotland, should, through no fault of their own, be forced to take prices for


their cattle far below the cost of production. I want the Minister of Agriculture, when we back him up in this sugar business, which some of us have always regarded with great misgivings from the start and in which we think the money in any event has been wrongly directed for many years, to realise the unfairness of the situation as it affects the North-East of Scotland and to give us some assurance that their grievances, which are very legitimate, will also be remedied by the Government.

Amendment negatived.

5.5 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 35, line 27, after "period," to insert:
(not being less than two months from the date on which the scheme comes into force).
The purpose of the Amendment is to provide a minimum period which may be prescribed by an amalgamation scheme as a time limit for the right of appeal to the courts by shareholders or debenture holders aggrieved by the allocation of securities or other assets. Attention was called to the fact that it was thought desirable in certain quarters that there should be a, definite minimum period. Indeed, the next Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Dingle Foot), suggests three months. The reason why I suggest instead a, period of two months is that a three months limit would be too long to secure that in the ordinary case the matter would be confined to a single Law Term, and by cutting it down to two months it should be possible to avoid running over a, vacation, and no harm is done to anybody. The matter may well be, in fact probably is, academic, since this part of the Schedule relates to compulsory schemes, and there is now little likelihood that compulsory schemes will be necessary. But, be that as it may, I suggest to the House that the proposed Amendment is an improvement in the Bill.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. FOOT: I do not propose to quarrel with the Lord Advocate as to the difference between two months and three months, but there is one question which I would direct to him. Will he make it clear that the period of two months which

he has specified is the time within which the proceedings may be started?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I can certainly say that that will be made clear in any scheme. No one can possibly say how long it may take to complete the proceedings in an appeal.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

5.8 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Ramsbotham): Since the beginning of February this Measure has been subjected to exhaustive discussion and prolonged criticism, but I do not recollect that at any time during our discussions it has been suggested in any quarter of the House, except possibly by the small party below the Gangway opposite, that assistance should be withdrawn from this industry, that it should be allowed to lapse and its life be terminated. The attitude of the Opposition is that, this House having approved on the Second Reading the principle that the industry should be continued, and therefore that assistance to it should be continued, they should confine their efforts to doing the best they can to make the Bill as good as possible. That does not prevent the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) and his friends from criticising practically every line of it, and I am not sure that I am exaggerating if I say that I believe that the only Clause in the Bill which has the entire approval of the right hon. Gentleman is the Clause which provides that certain calculations in the Bill shall not be carried further than one place of decimals. In fact, throughout the right hon. Gentleman has treated the Bill to what is described in the same Clause as the cold water digestion method.
I doubt whether any Bill in recent times has ever been approached in a frame of mind so suspicious. None the less, the Bill has come through unscathed, and I believe the right hon. Gentleman will admit that his reasons for suspicion are based, not so much on the contents or the prospects of the Bill, as on the past record and history of the industry with which it is concerned. He has time and again reminded us of the


enormities committed during the last 10 or 12 years by those who have been charged with the direction and control of this industry, and I cannot think of any onslaught at all against persons engaged in commerce parallel to that delivered by the right hon. Gentleman, except perhaps that made by Charles James Fox against the directors of the East India Company.
At the same time, it may be contended, with a good deal of justification, that the history of this industry during the last 10 or 12 years has not given entire satisfaction to every member of the community, and it may also be contended that the assistance which was indicated some 12 years ago has, in the light of subsequent events, proved in certain cases to be too generous. The large profits and distributions made by certain of the more successful companies may make it difficult to deny that the rates of assistance suggested by Lord Snowden on the 30th July, 1924, were too lavish and that they involved the State in expenditure which was higher than was strictly necessary to produce the results desired by Lord Snowden. It is easy, of course, to be wise after the event. It is no part of my duty to defend Lord Snowden. He has plenty of friends opposite who can do that, but it may be fair to say in his defence that at that time there was a case for giving a very considerable stimulus in order to attract capital to this industry which otherwise would not have been attracted, and to encourage growers who, without a very considerable encouragement, would not have offered contracts to grow the beet.
A case has also been made in the course of our discussions in regard to the admission of foreign capital to this industry, particularly in its early stages. I would say as to that, in passing, that the foreign capitalist certainly entered the industry and made profits out of it, but at no time was there anything to prevent the British capitalist from doing the same, because he had precisely the same opportunity, but he was reluctant to take advantage of it. However, that is all past history and finished with. As regards the future, this Bill, while securing and maintaining as its primary object the interests of British agriculture, will make it extremely difficult in future for the right hon. Gentleman or any of his

friends to allege that the consumer is being exploited.
I will detain the House for a few minutes in regard to the financial effects of this Measure, and I will deal with them under four headings. If we take the last normal year, 1934–35, the subsidy payable in that year, including the subsidy on molasses, was 7s. 3d. per cwt. For the current year, 1936–37, the raw sugar price is about 5s. per cwt., and if there is no variation in the standard conditions laid down in the Bill, the effective rate of assistance will be 4s. 9d. per cwt. Accordingly, the subsidy will be 2s. 6d. per cwt. lower, and, on the figure of 560,000 tons of white sugar which is the standard quantity laid down in the Bill, the saving will amount to no less than £1,400,000 annually compared with the normal year 1934–35. Secondly, as a result of limiting the quantity assisted to 560,000 tons of white sugar, it will involve a further saving compared with 1934–35. In that year the production of sugar amounted to 600,000 tons. The subsidy on the new standard quantity will be on the lower rate of 560,000 tons, and that saving, combined with the duty preference, will total another £500,000. Thirdly, there will be savings in factory costs consequent upon amalgamation and the incentive proposals contained in the White Paper. The estimate in the White Paper, which we hope will be realised, is that over 10 years these savings will amount to £235,000 per annum, of which the State will get on the average £160,000.
We are, therefore, in the position of being able reasonably to forecast a total saving as the result of this Measure, compared with 1934–35, of rather more than £2,000,000 per annum. The savings do not necessarily end there. In this Bill we have related the subsidy to the price of raw sugar, so that a penny rise or fall in the price of raw sugar will produce a penny fall or rise in the amount of the assistance. There is scarcely a country to-day where the producers of sugar are making a profit. Indeed, the Greene Report stated:
under more normal conditions a rise in the price of sugar would appear inevitable.
We cannot forecast the price; it would be very convenient to do so; but if the 1928 level of the price of raw sugar, 11s. 7d. per cwt., were regained, no subsidy would be payable. Even if the price were to go back to the lower level of 1929


of 9s., the subsidy required would be only a few pence per cwt. I will not weary the House with voluminous details in regard to this Measure or endeavour to enumerate the complicated system of checks and counter-checks which have been devised to protect the public interest and for the control of public money. The Bill is admittedly very intricate and complicated, and we were at all times during the Committee and Report stages in some danger of not being able to see the wood for the trees.
On Third Reading, I think, we may now stand back and take a bird's eye view of the position. The kernel of the whole structure is the amalgamation of the 15 companies owning the 18 factories into a single corporation to take over the assets of those companies. I am certain that no other method of assistance would enable an adequate chance to be given to the high-cost factories without being unduly generous to the low-cost factories. That, in passing, was a serious difficulty in the original scheme for assisting the industry. The consideration for the transfer is £5,000,000, to be satisfied by shares of one denomination. This figure is arrived at by valuation and agreement as a result of protracted and difficult negotiations between the informal tribunal set up to advise the Government in this matter, assisted by the well-known accountants Messrs. Thomson McLintock and Company, and the Beet Sugar Factories Committee. The valuation has been made on the basis recommended by the Green Committee, namely, the written down replacement cost and not the written down original cost. It may interest the House to know that the original cost of these factories was £9,400,000 and that figure, depreciated at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum, would give a present-day value of £6,100,000.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I take it that the figure of £9,400,000 includes the plant as well as the business. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is not going to give the country the impression that a 5 per cent. depreciation is a right one. If he takes that line the value of £6,000,000 is quite a fictitious value.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The right hon. Gentleman may have his own opinion, but I do not think that that is an unreasonable figure spread over the whole

plant and machinery. The Chairman of the new Corporation and two of its members will be appointed by the Government. My right hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on behalf of the Government, have invited Sir Francis Humphrys to accept the chairmanship when the Corporation is formed. I am happy to say that the invitation has been accepted. Sir Francis Humphrys has rendered distinguished service to the State in the past. He has had long experience in the work of the political department of the Government of India; he has been High Commissioner in. Iraq; British Ambassador in Bagdad; and during the last few months he has been chairman of this informal tribunal which has rendered great service to the Government in conducting negotiations and arriving at the result of which the House is now aware. The appointment of every original member of the board will be subject to the approval of the Government after consultation with the Sugar Commission.
Under this Bill there will be set up a permanent Sugar Commission charged with the duty of keeping under review the growing of beet, the manufacture, refining, marketing, and consumption of sugar; and of advising and assisting the Minister and the Treasury. This body will be entirely impartial and will have a surveillance over the whole area of the production of sugar in the United Kingdom. It will be no servant to the industry. It will keep the balance so that the interests in the industry do not conflict. It will be the watchdog for the community, and it will be able to secure that the Corporation's scope for self-government and for the exercise of initiative and enterprise shall not come into conflict with the interests of the public. The growers' interest will be in the hands of this Commission because consultation with the Commission is an essential preliminary to all contracts by the Corporation for the purchase of beet. Arrangements have also been made to stabilise prices to the grower as far as possible, and to mitigate loss either through excess of crop or deficiency of crop on account of adverse farming conditions. Arrangements have also been made in the Bill to protect the wages and conditions of employment of the workers in the industry. My right hon. Friend inserted a new Clause to carry out that


object after consultation and agreement with hon. Gentlemen opposite.
To return to the financial arrangements, there is no Treasury guarantee of interest. A rate of assistance sufficient to enable the Corporation to earn profits equal to the rate of interest which the Treasury consider reasonable is the rate specified in the Bill. As my right hon. Friend has indicated and as is stated in the White Paper, a reasonable rate is a basic rate of 4 per cent. per annum. There is no undertaking that that rate shall be the invariable rate, and it depends very largely on the Corporation and upon its efficiency as to what it earns and what the rate of interest will be. If, as hon. Members opposite have suggested, there were a 4 per cent. guaranteed maximum, it would almost inevitably follow that there would be a considerable degree of stagnation and inefficiency in the industry. The directors would be tempted to be content with a comparatively low level of efficiency and would have no inducement or encouragement either to carry out the full degree of economies or to embark upon new methods with the risks that new methods sometimes involve.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the directors, whom we hope will improve the efficiency of the industry, will not, as a result of the incentive proposals, receive an increase of salary?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The hon. Member forgets that the directors are responsible to their shareholders.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I only put this question for the sake of clarity. Is it not the case, according to the terms of the Bill, that no matter how hard the directors work, the benefits go only to the shareholders and none to the directors, the technical staff or the workers?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: That may be so, but the hon. Gentleman knows that a director is responsible to the shareholders and that he himself in many cases has a stake in the company which he is directing. The principle laid down by the Opposition would result in considerable detriment to the State, because the principle of this Bill is to aid the industry on a deficiency basis. When there is more efficiency and economy is exercised

by this Corporation, the greater the advantage to the Exchequer, because the deficiency to be made up is correspondingly reduced by the greater earning capacity of the Corporation. That is the reason for the elaborate provisions set out in the White Paper for what are called the incentive proposals. The Corporation and the Treasury share in the proceeds of economy and efficiency in certain proportions. I am bound to say, after studying these proportions, that I think the Treasury are likely to do very well out of it.
On the assumptions in the White Paper, the Corporation is permitted to retain, on the average over ten years, 5½ per cent. per annum, made up as to 4 per cent. by the basic rate of interest and 1½ per cent. by the incentive proposals. I think that it, a fair arrangement, though it would be an abuse of language to call it generous. I would ask, To which of these proposals can the Opposition offer any effective objection? They want the industry to be maintained and continued, and they have made no proposal to confiscate it—the time of the big, clean sweep has not yet arrived. They want the beet crop to be grown, and growers to be encouraged to continue operations. I know they hanker after what they call a public service corporation, but there really is no analogy between that and what is proposed in the Bill as the method of carrying on this industry. For, among other reasons, in this Bill we have limited the production of the commodity by statute, and that would be quite impossible if we were carrying on the industry on the lines of a public service corporation. There is a great deal of criticism of both public and semi-public bodies on the ground that under them competition is eliminated and that we can no longer get the same incentive to efficiency. That criticism cannot be applied to this Corporation, for several reasons. The first is that though it has a monopoly of home-grown production it has no monopoly of sugar in the United Kingdom market. Secondly, it has, what too often public and semipublic bodies lack, a strong inducement to achieve economies. In our plan we shall not stereotype the Corporation on the dead level of a stagnating industry. We give it not only the liberty but the encouragement to progress, and we take advantage of that spirit of enterprise and


initiative which, while human nature remains what it is, is not likely to be forthcoming unless it obtains some reward.
Therefore, I strongly recommend this Bill to the House. It will reduce the demand upon the Exchequer, compared with the position in 1934–35, by more than £2,000,000 per annum, and in time the reduction may be considerably more. In certain circumstances, which we trust will never occur, this industry will provide an important and substantial reserve of food. It will keep in use £5,000,000 worth of food-producing machinery, and keep in employment some thousands of persons engaged in operating it. It maintains a beet crop which to-day is an essential part of the crop rotation, and we have not at any time in our discussions heard any suitable alternative suggested. It will establish at home a beet sugar industry, once and for all, on firm and stable foundations, and it will preserve an asset created by the nation at great expense—some 400,000 acres of land in good cultivation, and indirectly many hundreds of thousands more—and keep in employment some 30,000 to 40,000 men. Without this Bill those acres might well go derelict and those men return to the towns and join the ranks of the unemployed.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
whilst this House is desirous of promoting British agriculture, and the employment of labour in connection therewith, it cannot approve of a continuous expenditure of public money for the benefit of a private monopoly, with no provision for converting the sugar industry into a national undertaking, or ensuring that it shall become financially independent of State support.
When the Third Reading of a Bill is taken on the same day as the Report stage there is no time to table for printing a reasoned Amendment, and therefore I must apologise to the House for having to submit this Amendment in manuscript form. If one could accept as real truth the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary in his closing words—not the facts that he explained, but the statements he made—one would almost be inclined to vote for this Bill, but when one comes to examine those statements one finds they are little more than a few sentences out of the propaganda, of

the British Sugar Beet Society. The hon. Gentleman has not bothered himself or his Department to find out whether or not those statements are correct. One would imagine, for example, that hundreds of thousands of acres of land would go derelict if no sugar beet were grown in this country, but the history of agriculture proves that to be utter nonsense. Until 30 years ago practically no sugar beet was grown in this country. Does the hon. Member think there was no rotation of crops in those days? Was there no alternative crop to the sugar beet crop then?

Mr. ELLIOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the wages 30 years ago?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The Minister talks about wages 30 years ago, but does not that observation apply to every other commodity with which he is concerned as Minister of Agriculture? In the case of any specific crop with which he has to deal, he may have to ask for a subsidy, but that is no argument that sugar beet is the only crop which he can put forward as a rotation crop. It is sheer nonsense to say that it is; it is not backed up by agricultural science or experience. That statement is simply a repetition of the propaganda of the British Sugar Beet Society. Then the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Bill would keep in employment 30,000 or 40,000 people, and that would suggest that he meant they were being employed for 12 months, but he knows that is not so. It is true that in Committee he translated those figures into man-years or something of the kind, but in the Debates in this House in the last ten years it has been proved many times that of all the subsidies ever proposed none was more expensive in relation to the volume of labour employed than the sugar beet subsidy. Although the hon. Gentleman made a great deal of play with the fact that certain economies will reduce the direct subsidy to be paid, he did not tell the House that on the present price of sugar the direct assistance which will be given under this Bill, plus the amount of the Excise Duty which the Exchequer loses—that is, the amount it would have collected if we were importing the sugar—will still be over 5,000,000 a year. For that expenditure we shall put into the sugar market a


maximum of 516,000 tons of sugar made from beet. As that will cost about £5,500,000 a year the subsidy will still be at the rate of over 100 per cent. of the present market value of the commodity. That is a very different picture from the one which the Parliamentary Secretary gave. Although the figures given by Sir Herbert Samuel three or four years ago in relation to the cost per man of the employment provided by the subsidy will go down somewhat, it is still true to say that by and large it would be cheaper to close every factory and to give a pension to every one of the workers employed in the industry than to continue the payment of this subsidy. If that is not true, perhaps the Minister of Agriculture will say so when he replies.
The Parliamentary Secretary is always industrious—I pay that tribute to him—but, as is the case with so many of us in this House, he does like to make a good political hit, and on the Third Reading of this Bill he could not avoid taking one or two "cuts." I think I have shown that the view he took in the closing passages of his speech cannot be justified, and that his rosy picture of the future of the industry will not be seen in reality. I must also say a word about his observations when dealing with the history of this industry. He referred to the rate of assistance which, he said, Lord Snowden was responsible for offering. I know that Departmental Ministers always like to cast financial responsibility upon the Treasury—it is a very old "gag"—but the hon. Gentleman and his right hon Friend must know from their experience of the Ministry of Agriculture that the rate of assistance then proposed was settled in the Ministry of Agriculture, just as it has been very largely settled in the Ministry of Agriculture at the present time. While I do not pretend to be a special defender of Lord Snowden, I do not feel it is fair to charge him with offering a rate of assistance which, I think, was settled in negotiation at that time by the Ministry of Agriculture. In any case, conditions in the industry were then different. The rate of subsidy was fixed on a declining scale, to be revised at three periods in the course of 10 years, and it was 'also indicated that it was done by that method so that at the end of 10 years the industry would be self-supporting. That

was the distinct understanding—that at the end of 10 years it was hoped the industry would be self-supporting.

Mr. ELLIOT: Hoped.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The speeches made from the Ministerial Benches from time to time have not sustained the hope that the industry wilt be self-supporting, and it is because no provision has been made in that direction that we have put down this reasoned Amendment. In his history of the industry the Parliamentary Secretary made the charge against me—well, I do not know whether he intended it as a charge or not—that not since the days of Charles James Fox had there been such an attack upon directors of industry as I have continuously made on directors in this industry. He compared it with the attack on the East India Company's directors. I make no apology at this moment for any attack I have made upon the management or the conduct of his shameful financial business. Let me tell the Parliamentary Secretary that I have written the charges and I have spoken them outside this House. I have written them in the Press and I have spoken them in the public inquiry under Section 9 of the Marketing Act. I have repeated them here in the House, but there has been no answer. Neither the Minister of Agriculture nor the Parliamentary Secretary ever deigns to answer in regard to the facts about which I have spoken. Therefore, it does not do him any good to make that sort of statement in the House. If he has any complaint to make, let him get up and defend the conduct of the industry. I have heard no defence from him at any time during the passage of this Bill, in respect of the way in which the industry has been conducted under the pouring out of this public money, now amounting to £50,000,000 in the last 12 years, and which apparently is to be carried on.
Before I leave the points alluded to by the Parliamentary Secretary, let me cover two other points He said, in what I think was the first explanation that we have had from the Minister as to the White Paper on the financial amalgamations carried out by the Bill, that the valuation basis was a very fair one because it followed the lines of the report of the Greene Committee. I thought


that was a most amazing way of presenting the facts. I do not think that any managing director of a large business would approve a figure of this kind for depreciation of plant and machinery. If you had to deal with large buildings which were well built and properly maintained, I could understand a figure of 5 per cent., or even 4 per cent., depreciation on buildings, but when dealing with plant and machinery I would not, speaking personally, in any of the undertakings with which I have been connected, have allowed a penny less on the largest machinery than an annual rate of 10 per cent. for depreciation.

Mr. ELLIOT: Surely the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that if you take in the figures for land and buildings you are allowing a figure higher than the 10 per cent. which he allows for machinery.

Mr. ALEXANDER: I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the £9,400,000 was the total for both buildings and plant.

Mr. ELLIOT: Mr. ELLIOT indicated assent.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Then if it is the total, which, depreciated by 5 per cent., as he says, gives a figure of £6,100,000, my point holds good.

Mr. ELLIOT: No.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Certainly. I say that you ought to allow at least 5 per cent. depreciation on the buildings and at least 10 per cent. on the plant. I know—I do not need to argue about it—that the cost, included in that £9,400,000, on the plant, is a very large part of the total. If you allow for depreciation at least 10 per cent., it is no use trying to pretend that we have made a great bargain in the amalgamation of these concerns at a figure of £5,000,000. I do not want either the House or the country to be misled by that figure.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House. Let me say again that we are allowing a far higher figure than 5 per cent. for machinery. We are allowing nothing for the land. We are not writing down the value of the land. If we allow a figure of 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. for the buildings, that permits a figure of from 7 per cent. to 12 per cent. for the

machinery. The right hon. Gentleman. knows better than anyone that great sums have been expended annually on machinery—hundreds of thousands of pounds, so that, in fact, these are very fair figures.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Most of the expenditure to which the Minister refers is included in that item. From my superficial knowledge of the industry—I admit that it is superficial—and from my information, in the figure of £5,000,000 that is being paid, having regard to the fact that last year three companies distributed £750,000 in cash bonuses, and that another seven companies distributed more than that from their total undertakings, which were not all in beet sugar, from the profits that they had made, we are not, on behalf of the public, making a good bargain.
With regard to the other point that the Parliamentary Secretary made, about the accounts in the White Paper, we on this side of the House welcome the announcement that the Government have been able to appoint a really neutral chairman of the amalgamated Corporation. In view of the public services of Sir Francis Humphrys, we think him a very suitable and trustworthy person to take this appointment. One would be more interested to find out what is to be the composition of the Sugar Commission, which is the body which in future will be able to say: "You may have a licence," or "You may not have a licence, to take part in this industry." There is nothing with which to quarrel in regard to the subcommittee of three who acted as a tribunal in making the basis of amalgamation. I do not want to be accused afterwards of not having expressed our views on the subject, and what I have said does not mean that we are satisfied or that we regard the selection of the personnel as right. I hope that the Minister will remember that if there is to be a completely neutral body, as I gather is the intention, then that must be so, and I have no complaint to make, but if we are to have upon it directors of industry in this country, we shall certainly have something to say about it. I hope that the Minister will take that into account. We welcome the decision to have a neutral chairman of the Corporation, and the appointment of Sir Francis Humphrys. We shall watch closely, and the Minister must expect us to watch


closely, the selections which are made for the appointments to the Sugar Commission, which ought to be a neutral and impartial body.
We have no quarrel at this moment, on the Third Reading, with the suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary that we have conducted our opposition to the Bill on the lines that, the House having approved the principle that this industry has to be continued, we should do our best to withdraw the provision made for the running of the industry. It does not mean, because the whole of our side of the House has taken that point of view, that all of us necessarily agree individually that it might not have been the better course not to continue the industry. I want to make that plain, but, the House having decided that the industry must continue, we make no apology for having devoted ourselves to trying to improve the manner in which it is conducted. The country owes something to the Opposition in this matter, not merely during the passage of the Bill but during the last two or three years, for its opposition to that very blameworthy scheme, the marketing scheme, which was rejected some years ago, to the continuance of the subsidy proposals of the Government, as well as in the meticulous examination of this Bill on Second Reading and during the Committee stage. As the Bill leaves the House now, although many of us disagree entirely with it in principle, as continuing a grant to a monopoly for the purpose of maintaining a private body, we claim that we have been enabled to get the Government to make concessions which will be valuable from the point of view of the public.
We think it is a great gain that we have now provided in the Bill that no one who has had direct profit-making connection with the industry for the last five years can serve on the Sugar Commission. We also think it is a gain that, having regard to the public experience of the industry in the last 12 years, we are at last to have adequate accounts, or something like adequate accounts, of the Corporation in future, taking in both a balance sheet and a profit-and-loss account; and now, I think, the Minister is making provision for some measure of depreciation account. That is a gain from the point of view of the public. We have been able to lay down conditions

under which licences are granted, although I have very little hope of seeing any new licences granted of any importance in this industry in the next few years. The existing organisation will go on with the production and manufacture. We can say to the public at large that we have done a piece of useful work in opposition to the Bill during the last three or four years. We continue to say that while we are prepared at any time to consider what best can be done to co-ordinate the efforts in agriculture for an improved standard of life for the workers in the industry and an improved standard of marketing for any suitable commodity in this industry, we are not prepared, as a party, to agree to the continuation of a cash subsidy, however direct or indirect, to an industry which sets up this rigid basis of monopoly and yet maintains the basis of private profit.
The Parliamentary Secretary said just now that while they had not been able to accede to our maximum of 4 per cent. being laid down in respect of the capital of the new Corporation, they were allowing a profit up to 5½ per cent., and he said that the 5½ per cent. must be taken over an average of 10 years. I gather from the White Paper that there are possibilities of its going still higher—that with the consent of the Treasury the profits may be 7 per cent.; and I am not sure that, with the consent of the Treasury, they might not go higher still. If that is not so, perhaps the Minister will tell us in his reply. From this point of view again I think our opposition is justified. If we on this side thought that it was necessary to continue the industry at all, we should have thought that, after all the tens of millions of pounds that have been expended on it, it should be made into a publicly owned industry. The Parliamentary Secretary seemed to think just now that that was not possible. Why is it not possible?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I should be out, of order if I answered that question.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Why?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Because now we can only discuss what is in the Bill, and not what is not in it.

Mr. ALEXANDER: It was quite in order for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that what we wanted was not


possible, but apparently it would not be in order to tell us why it is not possible. That seems an extraordinary way of getting over the difficulty. There is no reason at all why, if the Government thought fit, after all the expenditure of public money on this industry and the promise of future expenditure, they should not have taken over the whole industry as a public Corporation and worked it for the benefit of the whole community. The only reason really is that they are not prepared to go as far as that. As we pointed out on the Second Reading, it is not that the Minister of Agriculture himself is wedded to the principle of individualistic enterprise. I think that, as I said then, he is the great protagonist of the gradual advance towards a corporate State by means of sectional legislation. If the present Bill leaves the House of Commons with this Corporation set up as a close monopoly, the right hon. Gentleman will have added a substantial pillar to the structure of what he hoped to see—the corporate State, that part of the revolution about which he spoke on the wireless two or three years ago, and which I shall never allow him to forget. Undoubtedly, he has lost all faith in the individualistic doctrines of the Conservative party, the doctrines of private enterprise and private profit, but he is prepared to maintain for certain limited vested interests inside a corporate State whatever he can save for them by means of legislation of this kind.
We are entitled to argue strongly against the Bill on these grounds. We have been, at any rate, instrumental in extracting from the Government some concessions to one side of the workers in the industry, but I would remind the Minister that, in our reasoned Amendment on the Second Reading, we included as one of the reasons that the Bill made no provision for the agricultural workers in the industry, as distinguished from the workers in the factories. We have had no concessions in that direction, and, while we are alive to the concessions we have obtained from the Government in regard to the workers on the manufacturing side of the industry, we shall oppose the Bill on the ground that it gives no guarantee at all of an improvement in the status of the agricultural workers in the industry.

Lastly, I would point out that behind all this vast and continued expenditure of public money there is one class in the country that sits quite tight and secure—the landlord class—for every penny of the public money that is expended on this industry goes to enhance or maintain the value of agricultural land. The Minister shakes his head. Apparently he has not chosen to remember our experience, in connection with hops, of the effect upon the value of land of having a monopoly, but he knows perfectly well in his heart that the closing down of this industry by licence to a total of 375,000 acres puts a quota premium on the value of every acre of land that is likely to be used for sugar beet.

Mr. ELLIOT: That is inaccurate.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me how it is inaccurate. It is based on our experience of the licence system in the case of other similar commodities. The same thing is going to apply to sugar beet now that a wall is being put round the industry and it is to be worked as a close corporation through a monopoly, while at the same time public money is to be used to keep up the value of the commodity produced. I do not believe that any economist would be able to argue against that proposition. It is true that the Minister has taken many devious paths in economic studies since he left the Fabian Society of Glasgow University, but I do not think he will be able to answer that argument. This scheme is going to redound to the benefit of the landlords who are behind it, but it will not redound to the general benefit of the country. It may be that it will provide a certain amount of employment in certain parts of the country, but every additional ton of sugar grown here will keep a ton out from a place where the sun produces the sweet sugar, where you can grow four and a-half or five tons of sugar per acre while it is a great thing to grow one or one and a-half tons an acre here. Moreover, as a consequence of shutting out that sugar you will begin to break down other classes of international trade, and in the ultimate you are bound to lose on the swings what you make on the roundabouts in any such policy. While we agree that the House has determined in principle to go on with the Bill, it must not be assumed


that it will be wholly beneficial either to agriculture or to the economy of the country at large. Having regard to the fact that it sets up a monopoly, creates a vested interest, enhances the value of landlords' property, and refuses, at a time when the matter might well have been taken in hand, to give proper guarantees to the agricultural workers in the industry and to proceed to its public ownership, we must oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. WHITE: In following the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) in opposing the Third Reading of the Bill, I do not wish to follow him in any speculations as to the form of State that the Minister of Agriculture may seek to establish in this country. The only observation I would make on that subject is that, if it were a State built up by Measures such as this, its constitution would be very rickety, and not likely to give satisfaction to him or to anybody else. It is not necessary that I should speak at any length on the Third Reading. I think the whole House knows the views that we hold in reference to this Bill, and have held consistently since the Sugar Subsidy first began to engage the attention of Parliament. We have regarded it from the outset as a gross misuse of public funds. No answer has ever been given, so far as I know, in the House or out of it, to the devastating analysis of the financial results of the Bill which has been made by Sir Herbert Samuel on several occasions over many years. Our views on the general outlines of the scheme and its economics have been expressed on every appropriate occasion in the House of Commons.
We regard the Measure as analogous to many of those arrangements by which uneconomic crops are bolstered up and industries fostered in other countries, leading to a disorganised state of production and uncontrollable surpluses which are at the root of much of the economic distress of the world at the present time. The Parliamentary Secretary said he believed that we were the only party in the House who were in favour of the withdrawal of the subsidy. Whether that is so or not I do not know, but our position in that regard was made clear on

the Second Reading. We are not without sympathy for the Government in this matter. They have got caught up in the toils of the vested interests which have grown up over the last ten years, and which, so far as they find expression in this House, are, I believe, perfectly legitimate. They find their sponsors in all quarters of the House, and there is also the vested interest of labour, of which certainly we should never be unmindful. It was explained on the Second Reading that, while we accepted the Majority Report of the Greene Committee, which endorsed the views we have always expressed here and which have been supported at all times by much public opinion and by the Press, we recognised, being as much concerned as anyone in the House with the question of unemployment, that it would be unreasonable and disastrous to throw out of work some 40,000 agricultural workers who find their employment through the operation of this subsidy. We made it quite clear that we were prepared to support the suggestions of the Greene Committee or any other practical suggestions to meet the hardship that might arise for these men.
Parliament having decided that the subsidy was to continue, we have taken the course of trying to aid and abet the Minister in his attempts to find the right way of doing what we believe to be a wrong thing, and I should like to express our gratitude to him for the way in which he has met the points that we have tried to raise in Committee. He has given them consideration, and for the concessions he has seen his way to make we should like to express our thanks. We recognise that in setting up a novel piece of machinery of this kind, which establishes a monopoly that is permanent so far as anyone can see, certain essential things must be brought about by Parliament if the public are to have any patience at all with schemes of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough has already mentioned some of them.
It is essential that there should be ultimate and adequate Parliamentary control, and that there should be complete publicity in regard to accounts and, indeed, in regard to all the transactions of the Corporation. That prevision is especially necessary in dealing with a matter of


this kind, in which the suspicion and indeed, the antagonism of the public have already been aroused by some of the financial transactions which have appeared in connection with the scheme. These matters are essential. We have pressed them in Committee and in the House to the best of our ability, and we are grateful for such attention as has been given to them. I must, however, express the opinion that, in all the forms of public concern, or semi-public concern, or public board, or anything else which Parliament may set up, Parliament will find that it has an absolutely insoluble problem in trying to devise a suitable body or scheme to which to delegate any of its duties, if it is a part of the scheme that there should be a subsidy of public money raised from the general taxpayers of the country and at the same time a distribution of funds to special interested people in the Corporation. I have given some thought to that matter and I do not think it is possible to devise an instrument of control in which the payment of dividends can be reconciled with the contribution of a subsidy. I can see no way out of it. The present scheme itself must be regarded as unsatisfactory from that point of view.
I was unable to share the Parliamentary Secretary's optimism when he referred to the saving of £1,000,000 or more. It seemed to me that "saving" was hardly the appropriate term. If he had referred to the diminution of the losses, it would have been a more accurate description. We shall certainly watch, and the country will watch, the operation of the scheme, but the ordinary citizen will have very great difficulty in understanding it. As the Parliamentary Secretary said, it is a, very complicated Measure, and it is probably only those who have made a careful study of it who will be able to watch it with any sense of appreciation. A system that is so complicated will not commend itself to the people of the country in the long run because they will have such extraordinary difficulty in understanding it. I rejoice that Parliament will have some relief from constant preoccupation on the subject of sugar. In the last year or two we must have spent weeks of Parliamentary time in discussions on sugar beet. We part from the Bill without any enthusiasm. I should like to remind nay right hon. Friend of the words of a former

Prime Minister, Disraeli, in his life of Lord George Bentinck, written about 1846:
Sugar was an article of colonial produce which had been embarrassing, if not fatal, to many Governments. Strange that a manufacture which charms infancy and soothes old age should so frequently occasion political disaster.
I do not think for a moment that this Bill is going to occasion political disaster, but. I cannot think that the results are likely to lead to a strengthening of the position of the National Government.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. De CHAIR: I should like to take the opportunity on the Third Reading to make my peace with the Minister. I have not always been a great help to him upstairs, but it is arguable that there should be some at least among the supporters of any Government to keep that Government up to the mark in certain respects. It is, perhaps, a truism to say that opposition from an Opposition has little or no effect, whereas opposition from Government supporters very often has more. There are Members in the House who, like myself, were returned largely to represent the interests of producers of sugar beet, and therefore in the conduct of this Bill we have naturally been anxious to see that the grower gets as much of a square deal as possible. Now that we have come to this stage I should like to pay my tribute to the Minister, who must feel rather like the captain of the "Queen Mary" when she berthed at Southampton. He has stood with great patience on the bridge of this subsidised liner while it grounded on one or two shoals on its way down the river and, now that it has finally come to its graving dock for a general overhaul, it is found to be intact and almost ready for its maiden voyage.
When we examine this vast structure, from its keel of £2,900,000 and its Clauses of decks and Sub-sections of cabins, I am naturally inclined to look to see where in this structure the producer is placed. We find him at the bottom of the ship, in the Second Schedule, as a stoker pouring the sugar beet into the furnace to keep the ship going. Perhaps we in the sugar-growing areas feel that the officers of the ship, those who have the whip hand, are going to be the gentlemen in the First Schedule who represent the companies to be amalgamated in the


Corporation but, nevertheless, it is, as is the case with any ship, the public who will be the first-class passengers.
In that respect I should like to say one or two words which will perhaps make the hon. Member who has just sat down sit up. He said there has never been any proper answer given to the case made by Sir Herbert Samuel about the subsidy paid to the industry. It is, perhaps, relevant to point out, first, that in nearly every country in Europe sugar is grown under a large measure of State assistance. The assistance given in this country is lower than in any country on the Continent. The State assistance, taken all in all, with the remission of Excise, amounts approximately to 12s. a cwt. in this country, in Spain 20s., Italy 16s., Poland 20s. 6d., Czechoslovakia 14s. 4d., France 16s. 4d., and Germany 15s. 11d. The rate of assistance is much greater in all those countries, yet the retail price of sugar is much higher. In England it is approximately 2½. a lb., in Germany 3¾d., in France 3½., in Czechslovakia 3¾d., in Poland 4d., in Italy 7d.—that was before the imposition of sanctions—and in Spain 6d. Further, sugar grown in this country pays a large Excise, which is the case in only one Continental country—Denmark. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. White), when he says the industry is getting a subsidy which is costing the State millions of pounds annually, ought to bear that fact in mind. In the current year the subsidy will be £2,9000,000 and the industry will pay £2,300,000 in Excise, leaving a balance of only £600,000 which the State will have to pay.

Mr. ALEXANDER: The State would get four times that amount of duty from imported suger.

Mr. De CHAIR: That has no bearing on the situation. All the other countries have to pay duties on imported sugar and yet they do not receive any Excise on their own sugar. None of the other commodities produced by agriculture, such as wheat, potatoes and oats, which are in receipt of protection from a tariff, is paying Excise, and very few of the commodities produced by manufactures which have protection by duty pay Excise either. Therefore, it seems wholly unreasonable to say that the industry is costing the State millions of pounds

annually when it is in a peculiar position and the removal of the Excise would enable it to support itself almost entirely. Another important aspect of the Bill is, that in a time when the horizon is shadowed with the fear of war, it is a source of no little reassurance that over a third of our sugar supply is now produced in this country. If it were not for the perpetuation of the industry by this Bill, we should find ourselves without any sugar whatever. When we are considering the reorganisation of our defences it is surely legitimate to consider the food supply as well.
I listened with some interest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) when he said no answer had been given by the Government to the frequent charges made by the Opposition against the handling of the industry in the past. This Bill is the answer, because it rectifies the injustices of the past. The administration of the industry in the past may well have given rise to severe criticism, and upstairs we have seen a great deal of crying over spilt milk, but the milk is now spilt and there is no getting away from that. The Bill is designed to meet most of the criticisms that were levelled against it in the past, and that is the Government's answer to the right hon. Gentleman. There is no doubt that some people would have preferred to see the industry preserved in some other way, and it is arguable that payment of the subsidy, which is perpetuated in this Bill through the factories, proceeds on the Oriental assumption that the shortest distance across a square is by three sides. But the fact remains that, in that form of payment of the subsidy, the Bill limits the profits that may be made in the future, and we shall not hear any more the old tale of cash bonuses ladled out to shareholders, because that will be impossible under this Bill.
Hon. Members of this House have always been in some little difficulty in the formulation of a policy for assistance to sugar beet, because whenever the subsidy was trotted out year after year they naturally would not like to look a gift horse in the mouth. Those who represent sugar beet constituencies must necessarily have been glad that a subsidy was to be paid to the industry in whatever form it was to be paid, so long as part of it eventually reached the producer.


I think that now, in its present form, the abuses of the subsidy have been removed and there is to be a fair share between the factories, the producer and the Exchequer of the burden of continuing an industry which is of tremendous value to this country as a whole.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. QUIBELL: We are now considering the Third Reading of this Bill, and those of us who have spent some time in Committee have heard a good deal about sugar recently. In many respects the Bill is a distinct improvement upon what it was when it was sent upstairs. Those of us who sit on this side of the House were particularly interested in seeing that trade union conditions should prevail in the marketing and the refining of sugar, and we should also have liked these conditions to have been effected in connection with the production of the sugar beet. The Minister met us handsomely by incorporating a Clause which met all the provisions of the Amendments in our name on the matter. That is an important step in the right direction. The one serious objection that we have to the Bill is that it does not set up a public Corporation.
There are many hon. Members on this side of the House who are not Victorian Free Traders like the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). There are some of us who have no objection to subsidies, provided they are given to industries which are controlled and run in the public interest. Our objection in this case is, that it is not a public Corporation and that the subsidy does not go to the benefit of the producers and the general consuming public. The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. De Chair) prided himself that upstairs the producers' interests were looked after. I attended every meeting of that Committee, and I did not notice that it was a very noticeable feature of the proceedings for the hon. Gentleman and the rest of his colleagues to show much concern about the interests of the producers.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: Surely the hon. Gentleman will except me.

Mr. QUIBELL: I thought that the hon. Gentleman said that I should

execute him; I will excuse him all the same.

Mr. De CHAIR: I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) misunderstood my remarks. My object upstairs was to fight the capitalists in this concern in the interests of the sugar beet growers. There was a strong feeling that growers were being pared down to a minimum, while the capitalists were getting a very fat share out of it. I was opposing them in the interests of the producers.

Mr. QUIBELL: It did not seem to be very noticeable while I was upstairs. [An HON. MEMBER: "You were asleep."] The hon. Member still confines the producer, the farmer and the farm labourer—to the stokehold. I should have thought that he would have joined with us and put them with the admiral on the bridge.

Mr. De CHAIR: That is where I should like to put them. That is my point. I complained that they were in the bottom of the ship, not that they ought to be there; on the contrary I would like to see them with the admiral on the bridge.

Mr. QUIBELL: All I can say is that there has not been much done upstairs for the producer. What I am pleased about is that the industry is becoming an organised industry and a Corporation. I have an objection to it being a private Corporation, but one day, perhaps sooner than most people think, we may be on the opposite side of the House. This Bill goes a step in the right direction. The word "perpetuity" has no meaning for a Government, for should we come into office, we could take this Corporation over as a public Corporation and work it for the public good. I see no reason whatever why that should not happen, and indeed I hope that it will happen. I should like to know the attitude of some of our orthodox Free Traders, and I am sorry that the hon. Member for East Birkenhead is absent at the moment. What would they do for agriculture to-day? There are 400,000 acres under sugar beet, and we cannot grow sugar beet unless there is assistance from the State. What would become of it?
I agree that as far as agriculture is concerned, it should, if possible, stand


on its own footing, but under existing conditions and with world competition it could not do so. I have been converted from that old idea. Those who take that view should go to the countryside and preach that doctrine from one end of rural England to the other and see what kind of reception they would receive from men dependent entirely upon the industry for their livelihood. I remember the time when the party below the Gangway were in power, when the countryside was always sacrificed to the great urban and town populations of this country. Those of us who were brought up in the countryside and who shared all the fruits and blessings of small wages and very low standards of life are no longer content to put up with an economic or Free Trade system which makes slaves of those in the countryside in order to provide cheap food for our large town and urban populations, and thus maintain cheap labour. The Liberal party can claim what advantage they like from this sort of thing. [An. HON. MEMBER: "What about the Labour party?"] The Labour party do not believe in Free Trade or Tariff Reform as such, but in the transformation of a system which exists for private gain into one of public utility and use.
I am exceedingly pleased that, as far as the interest on capital is concerned, the Bill has limited it to a great extent, very largely owing to the work which the Opposition did in Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary with his charming manner and tone captivated us in Committee, but I should have liked his speech better to-day if he had told the House frankly that the difference between the Bill now before the House and that which was originally introduced was very largely due to the ten days spent upstairs over the Measure. We are pleased that the rentier class are at least to be limited in the amount they are to take out of it. If they make certain economies as a result of the operation of the Bill and make additional profits, who is to share in them? The hon. Member for North Norfolk was there when some of us tried to include the producer in the sharing of the amount of money, but there was not a single voice raised in support of the producer getting increased prices for his beet in order to give better wages to his labourers.
I regret that the producer is not also to share in it. It is two-thirds to the State, and one-third to the rentier. Trade union conditions of labour and pensions for those employed in the industry have been incorporated in the Bill, and I should have liked these provisions to have been extended to those working on the farms. I know that that would be a difficult problem, because they are only engaged for a certain part of the year. The Bill is a distinct improvement, due to the work which was done upstairs. The Minister has met us fairly in a lot of our Amendments. We had to fight very hard in order to get improvements, and as a Member of the Committee I am grateful to him for the way he has met some of our Amendments. The Bill is r tremendous improvement and will be a blessing to the extent that it provides for the reorganisation of the industry, and when we occupy the benches opposite it will be easier for us to make this industry a public concern.

6.43 p.m.

Major COURTAULD: I listened very attentively to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and I did not get a single ray of hope. He painted a picture showing the benefits that this Measure would confer upon agriculture, but those benefits are going to accrue only to the producers within the magic circle of East Anglia and the East Midlands, and another still more magical circle drawn around the town of Cupar. Nobody outside is apparently going to be left with any assurance other than that the Minister will in due course make it his business to point out to the Sugar Commission that something must be done for the more distant areas. The Parliamentary Secretary also drew a very gloomy picture of what would happen to agriculture if this Bill were not passed. He painted a picture of many acres going out of cultivation, the dislocation of the rotation of crops, and increased unemployment in agricultural areas. I suppose that most of us could agree with that picture. That is a picture the painting of which areas such as Sussex, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight and Pembroke-shire will have to look for, unless a definite statement can be given before the House finally passes the Bill that something really will be done, and that they will not have to depend merely upon an


obviously well meant but vague promise from the Minister.
Speaking for the area which I know best, West Sussex, it will mean that unless special provision is made, 4,000 acres will go out of cultivation, with the attendant loss of employment. If equalisation of rates is impossible, as it apparently is, and is equalisation of rates is not to be considered, then the only other alternative is that some special arrangement must be made for giving preferential treatment, as has been provided for the Scotsmen, or a factory must be put up somewhere in West Sussex and Hampshire, and probably in Wales to deal with producers in those areas. I suggest to the Minister and to the Government that that is the obvious solution. I can undertake that if a factory were put up in West Sussex enough acreage could be provided to keep that factory busy. There is no doubt about that. There would have been a factory there years ago if any encouragement had been given with regard to the future of the sugar beet industry, but they were told on every application that they must wait until the long-term policy of the Government had been decided upon. Therefore, the acreage has been very considerably curtailed, but it could be very largely increased.
As far as I see, the Bill puts a definite limit on the amount of acreage which can be cultivated for the production of sugar beet. If that maximum acreage cannot be increased, then to increase the acreage in an area like West Sussex would only mean that some other area would have to have a decreased acreage. I can well understand that that is a difficult problem. I can also understand that it was not easy to embody in the Bill provisions for the more distant areas. I have attended almost all the Debates on this subject, including the Debates in Committee, and I have thought very earnestly on the question of being able to include a new Clause or an Amendment that would cover the point, but it was not easy as the Bill was framed. That being so, I ask, and I think I shall have the House with me in asking, that those other areas which have cultivated and are cultivating sugar beet should be given equal terms with those in East Anglia or in Scotland. It can be done. If we can get that assurance it will be something, but even that does not go the whole way, because there

is the question of the current year to be considered.
Embodied in the Bill are prices to be paid at the various factories in the Midlands and East Anglia, and the prices to be paid to the sugar beet producers in the area which supplies the factory at Cupar, but no price is included in the Bill which deals with the other areas. The House must realise that unless some provision is made for the current year, obviously the acreage under cultivation in those more distant areas is bound to fall. Sugar beet will be produced at a loss, and when it comes to the following year, with the possibility of the Sugar Commission meeting the farmers in those districts and also consulting with the Minister of Agriculture on the subject, it is probable that a good deal of this acreage will have already gone out of cultivation.
I hope that I have made by point clear. I cannot support the Bill unless I get some assurance to the effect that I desire. I have listened to the Debates in the House and upstairs with hope, but I have heard nothing which I can really call adequate for the needs of the farmers I represent and the needs of other farmers in other areas equally important. Unless I can get some assurance which will definitely mean something and not be merely a rather pious hope, I shall be unable to support the Third Reading of the Bill.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. J. HALL: I wish to call attention to the workers who are employed in the industry. The discussion so far as it has gone, particularly from the participants on this side of the House, has tended to show that as far as the agricultural workers are concerned we have no desire to do anything to hamper or hinder the development of the sugar beet growing industry. The point of view that we have taken in Committee, and the kernel of our objections to the methods that have been adopted, has been that we say when public money is being put into an industry that industry should be brought under public control. The cost of growing sugar beet and the development of the sugar industry this year will be somewhere in the vicinity of £6,000,000. Despite all that has been said, it is a fact that the industry is being publicly assisted to an enormous degree. In Committee the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) said that the Bill


meant that we are placing this industry on the dole. There is to be a direct subsidy this year to the extent of £2,750,000, if market conditions remain as at present. The loss to the revenue through the rebate of Excise Duty is in the vicinity of £3,000,000.
The sugar refining agreement has yet to be published. Up to the present time those of us who were Members of the Committee have no knowledge of the terms of that agreement, but as it is likely to bring about further expense it is fairly safe to assume that the total cost for one year will be £6,000,000. In other words, the country is to be expected to pay £6,000,000 more than if that quantity of sugar had been purchased abroad and had been introduced into the country that way. Roughly, the £6,000,000 is the amount that will be paid by the combine to the growers. Therefore, it is true to say that in this industry the combine will have the sugar handed over to it free of charge. My point is that each section of the industry has been protected. Despite the fears of the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), it is a fact that the sugar growers have been given a measure of protection, because the amount of acreage upon which sugar beet can be grown has been limited. The amount of white sugar that can be produced in one year is 560,000 tons, or the equivalent in raw sugar. Therefore, a close Corporation has been provided for growers of sugar beet and there is very little chance of new entrants so far as sugar beet growing is concerned. Only those who are now engaged in that particular branch of agriculture can expect to be participants in the work of producing sugar beet.
The factories have been saved from failure. Although the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture laid emphasis on the fact that when a 5½ per cent. or 7 per cent. dividend was paid there would be a saving to the Government, the fact remains that under the Bill a 4 per cent. dividend has been guaranteed. If the earnings fall below a figure that would earn a 4 per cent. dividend the Commission has the power to communicate with the Government or to recommend to the Government that for the following and succeeding years there shall be certain financial assistance so that the 4 per cent. can be guaranteed.

We are giving to the combine a gilt-edged security, which is something far better than they anticipated a little while ago. With regard to the port refiners, they have been classed by the Bill in a protected industry. For some time past they have been assisted by means of rebates of taxation, and now they are to be registered and licensed and are to be given all the advantage of a monopoly.
I am particularly concerned with the position of the workers in the industry. When we were discussing the Bill in Committee the White Paper on the amalgamation of the beet sugar manufacturing companies had not been issued. It has been issued since, and I discover in it, on page 15, a
Memorandum on incentive proposals.
That memorandum states:
The effect of the proposals set out in Part 3 of the arrangements for amalgamation would be that the earnings of the Corporation would be Largely dependent on the improvements in efficiency which it may be able to secure. It is believed that substantial savings can and should be made, although it is not possible to make any close estimate of their amount. It is assumed … that economies amounting ultimately to £300,000 per annum can be gradually effected within six or seven years.
I suggest to the Minister that there is an indication, as I stated in Committee, that through reorganisation and rationalisation a number of people may become redundant. We have to be very thankful to the Minister for the very generous way in which he met the representatives of the workers and trade unions by introducing a new Clause and giving to us completely the things for which we had asked; but there was one outstanding point, and it has been emphasised by the production of the White Paper, and that is the question of the workers who may become redundant and may be threatened with dismissal. I know that the Minister in Committee met that point with generosity by a statement in which he gave us to understand that he would use his influence on behalf of the men who might become redundant, so that the Corporation would act as a good employer. In view of the fact that the White Paper seems to presage the possibility of an even greater number of redundants than we had in mind when this Bill was in Committee, I ask the Minister if he will implement the promise he made and


see that there shall not be any difficulties created for the workers in these factories by reason of the new methods introduced under this Bill.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: The hon. Member for West Sussex (Major Courtauld) and the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) are under a serious misapprehension that the only part of Scotland where sugar beet is grown is round about Cupar, which is in my constituency. I tried to point out previously that was not so. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen challenged my statement, and claimed that in no part of Scotland north of Forfar could sugar beet be grown. I have refreshed my memory, and I have here the agricultural statistics for Scotland for 1934. Of the 33 counties in Scotland, no fewer than 25 grew sugar beet, and these included the districts which my hon. Friend stoutly declared could not grow sugar beet—Aberdeen, Moray and Nairn.

Mr. STEPHEN: How much?

Mr. STEWART: Not very much, but I repeat that we can grow it. Of the 7,000 acres grown in 1934, 43 per cent. were grown in Fife. The majority were grown in Perth, Forfar and other parts of the country. I repeat my claim that under a reasonable system of payment free on rail Scottish growers can make the Cupar factory an economic proposition. I claim that this House has no right deliberately, and without notice, to cut off such assistance until the farmers have shown that they have failed. I do not ask that the subsidy should continue for ever. I support the Bill on the clear understanding, and in the belief, that under these new conditions in five years' time there will be no need for such a subsidy. That is my belief, and I shall be very disappointed if in five years' time any subsidy is needed. May I deal now with the challenge offered by the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). He tried to make out that it was not true that the first great subsidy scheme introduced by a Government was introduced by a Labour Government. He said that was not true, and quoted instances of assistance of one kind or another that had been offered to the industry before. I have here the report of the Greene Committee, and I would

refer the right hon. Member—who I am sorry is not present—to pages 18 and 19, where there is put very shortly the history of State assistance to this industry. There have been three steps in the history of State assistance. The first was before the War. The report states:
Meanwhile, endeavours had been made to secure some measure of State assistance to the industry, without which it appeared that successful commercial development would be impossible. A grant of £11,000 was obtained from the Development Fund in 1913 in aid of experiments in the cultivation of sugar beet.
That is the first note we have of State aid. A little lower down on the same page it is stated:
Money was advanced from the Development Fund for the purchase of the Kelham Estate in Nottinghamshire, but the decision to provide the further assistance necessary for the erection of the factory was delayed until 1919.
And later, in paragraph 61, it is stated:
At the same time the owners of the Cantley factory, which was operated at a loss during 1920 and 1921, intimated that they would be unable to carry on unless the excise duty was removed, and this proposal was supported by important agricultural interests.
That is the first notice of that particular form of State assistance.
As has been explained in Chapter 1, the difference between the excise and customs duties was then 6s. 3d. per cwt.
It goes on:
The Government, after consideration, agreed to the complete remission of the excise duty, and as a result, the Cantley factory was able in 1922 to operate for the first time at a profit.
That was the third step in State assistance, the Excise Duty step. In 1923 the Cantley and Kelham factories were operated and the erection of a third factory was undertaken at Colwick in Nottinghamshire. Up to the time of Mr. Snowden's statement there were only three factories, two built and a third in course of building. To show the importance of the step taken by the Labour Government under Mr. Snowden, we have on page 19 of the report a paragraph with the heading "The Initiation of the Subsidy." What does that mean but that it was the Labour Government which initiated that subsidy? Of course it was. It is no use quibbling over what it was done for. The big thing was the subsidy, and here you have the initiation


of the subsidy. I am obliged to quote this sentence:
It was evident, however, that the protection afforded to the industry was dependent upon the maintenance of the customs duty at a level which might not always be justifiable on revenue grounds, and representations were therefore made that if this were reduced some other form of State assistance should be granted. The import duty was, in fact, reduced by the Budget of 1924 to 11s. 8d. per cwt., but in July of that year it was announced that direct assistance would be granted to home produced beet sugar,
I have here the report of the Debate in which Mr. Snowden introduced his new Bill. It is obvious in reading the Debate that here was an entirely new, big step, and the proof is that whereas there were only two and a half factories when the Labour scheme was introduced, there are now 18 factories.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Why does the hon. Gentleman not go back to the original statement, which he knows he cannot justify, that the Labour party introduced the first Bill to give a subsidy to this industry?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not clear what this has to do with the present Bill.

Mr. STEWART: I do not want to detain the House on it. I was challenged, and I think I have the right to reply. I think I have made a reply which will satisfy the House. The hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), who speaks with a first-hand knowledge of the growing of sugar beet, calls this "a good Bill." The justification for it is that no Government dare at this time sign the order for the sudden cessation of this industry and order such wanton destruction. That is the justification. All of us have in the past, myself included, criticised and condemned the immense and unjustifiable profits made by the beet sugar companies. I have taken my part in condemning such a system. Were it not for the fact that agriculture is in an extremely difficult position at present I would not be standing here in support of it. This is a Bill to meet the criticisms which I and others have levelled against the beet sugar companies in the past. While it may not go all the way towards 100 per cent. Socialism, the corporate State as they call it, which they offer to the House on occasions when it suits them, although we do not hear

about it on others, this is a practical method of controlling and limiting the profits which the beet sugar companies can make, and for that reason I support it. I know my hon. Friends the Opposition Liberals do not like this Measure. We seem to have changed. Either they have gone back or I have gone forward, I do not know which, but we have drawn apart. As my hon. Friend behind me pointed out, the fact is that if you take the Excise Duty and set it against the subsidy, there is nothing in it. The right hon. Member for Hillsborough said, "Of course, but the point is, look at the benefit you would give to the Exchequer if you imported this sugar instead of making it at home." Why do not hon. Members apply the same argument on other occasions? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman apply that argument to steel, to motor cars? Why do not Liberal Members apply it to wheat, the subsidy for which they introduced? Nobody in his senses would say, "You have an Import Duty on motor cars, therefore you are losing so many millions a year."

Mr. FOOT: The difference is a difference between a protective duty and an excise duty.

Mr. STEWART: I am aware of that, but it is an antiquated difference. The beet sugar industry is to-day no different from any other protected industry, and I see, therefore no logical reason for objecting to this Bill. I would have gone a long way with the Labour party towards making this a public concern like the Central Electricity Board. The day for that may yet come. I believe in that kind of structure in certain eases. It may be the right structure for sugar beet in four or five years time. Here, however, is an effort to maintain a great national industry, giving employment to large numbers of men; this is a Bill to maintain that in conditions of financial soundness, and for these reasons I am here to support it.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. PRICE: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has tried to prove that the party of which I am a member has been responsible for starting this subsidy on sugar beet. I have no objection to the use of subsidies in industry, but I take the view—and this is where I differ from many hon. Members opposite—that where a subsidy is used it must always be used


for the purpose of gaining public control. I am not satisfied that even now we have that full control over this industry that we should have in view of the considerable sums of money that have been spent. The Bill is the first offspring of the Minister of Agriculture in this Parliament. It looked somewhat unpromising when it first appeared, but as it passed through the school of the Committee stage and the university of Report stage, thanks to the efforts of the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell), it has gradually acquired a more promising appearance. I believe, however, that this offspring will not stand the rough-And-tumble of the world outside, and I am looking forward to the time when the right hon. Gentleman will be on this side of the House and we on the benches opposite when we shall have an opportunity of making this Corporation more like the Corporation we desire, and thus bring this offspring to full maturity. In some eases it is desirable that a parent should be removed from his offspring, where the parent's influence is not of the best. That is so in the case of this Bill. The time will come when we shall remove his offspring from the care and control of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that his offspring should be sent to the lethal chamber, but that his education should be continued in the direction we desire.
We are all agreed that this industry cannot go on without a subsidy. In fact, sugar beet cannot be produced in any country except Java and Peru without some form of public assistance. When the subsidy was first introduced it was thought that world prices would remain where they were then, and that it would be possible to get the industry on its feet. Then came the great slump, when every country started subsiding sugar beet. This utterly altered the position, and we had to consider whether we would let the industry drop or continue the assistance. We still feel that everything is not quite as satisfactory as it might be because too much public money is being pledged to support the Corporation, and that if action had been taken earlier it would not have been necessary. We still feel that if action had been taken to prevent this ramp we should not have to find all this money in order to get these

million debentures floated. I also agree that this grant of public money will make an investment in this industry practically a gilt-edged security earning about 5½ per cent., 4 per cent. plus 1½ per cent. when the economies take effect, while trustee stocks can only get 3 per cent. on the Stock Exchange at the moment. That is not a satisfactory position.
However, it all boils down to this. Hon. Members are being slowly educated up to it and little more effort on our part will enable them to realise that public control has to come. Already they are taking steps in that direction, but even now this Corporation will be able to hide its profits behind its reserves in spite of all the provisions of the Bill, and we shall never really have a satisfactory position until we get a public corporation. I am not impressed by the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary that this is not a case like electricity and gas, where the production is limited. That argument does not appeal to me. We shall get all these corporations under public control, and then we shall get a satisfactory position. All the same, this is a step forward compared with the conditions of the past, and when the time comes we shall make the other steps which alone will give it a permanent and satisfactory position.

7.21 p.m.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: I should like to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary for having brought the Bill to its last stage in the House of Commons. I appreciate the opportunity given to me to speak, probably for the last time in this House, on sugar beet. Every year for about 14 years I have taken part in discussions on sugar beet. It has been called a ramp. If it is a ramp, then I take the responsibility on myself for having introduced the ramp into this country. Long before 1922, when a sugar beet measure first came before the House, I was responsible for getting agriculture together to impress upon the then Government the good that sugar beet industry would be for British agriculture. In this matter I have always taken the part of the producer. It is interesting to know that Germany dates her agricultural revival from the establishment of the sugar beet industry, and it is on behalf of the producers that I have supported the industry


for the last 14 years. On the Bill itself there is only one point I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. In Clause 5 of the Bill there is a provision:
limiting the quantity of home-grown beet that may be sold by any person to the Corporation, or by arrangements made by the Corporation limiting the quantity of homegrown beet that may be purchased by the Corporation from any person.
I understand that that does not limit the purchase of any beet grown on any acreage in this country. I should like the Minister in reply, to state clearly whether that is so or not. In conclusion, on behalf of British agriculture, I congratulate the Government on the Bill. The hon. Member for Brigg and I have worked on behalf of the producers, and he and I are glad to know that at long last the Bill is to become law and so set British sugar beet industry on a permanent basis.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. C. S. TAYLOR: I apologise for keeping the House but I cannot let the Bill go through without registering my insignificant protest against it. I join in the appeal made by the hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Major Courtauld) to the Minister for a factory somewhere in the South of England, in Sussex or in Hampshire. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite do not welcome the Bill with open arms. To my mind it is more Socialistic than any Bill they themselves would have dared to introduce. We are told that it will not create any precedent for the future owing to its peculiar nature, but hon. Members opposite have pointed to the Bill and have said how they will use certain Clauses in it as useful precedents. I represent neither the manufacturers nor the growers. I have endeavoured to keep an open mind and see that both parties get a fair and square deal. It has always been my contention that the manufacturers do not get all the benefit of the subsidy; they merely pass it on to the growers. I am not complaining about that. I am delighted that British farmers should get some benefit from the Government in the face of world competition, which is unfair owing to the low wages and much longer hours which obtain abroad.
I look upon the Bill as establishing a very dangerous precedent, which will not only be followed by this Government but may be followed with drastic results by

the Opposition when and if ever they get into power. I can see the accusing finger of hon. Members opposite pointing to us and saying flat we established the precedent and that they are only following the excellent example which we set before them. With regard to the so-called voluntary amalgamation, I know that the Government have held the big stick over the manufacturers and said, "You must amalgamate or we will make it hot for you; you will do what you are told or you will not get such a good deal." The manufacturers have made great efforts to amalgamate in order to make the best of a very bad deal. So much for voluntary amalgamation. There is to be no appeal. It has been said that if an appeal was allowed it might upset the whole principle of the Bill but, on the other hand, I submit that it takes away from the individual a right which British citizens have enjoyed from time immemorial.
Let hon. Members consider by what means the industry started. Interested parties in sugar-beet tried to get money in the City of London and were unable to do so. Thereupon they endeavoured to get in foreign countries money with which to finance the industry, and they were successful. This is a most important point, and I think those who had the courage to invest money in an industry in this country which the City of London did not think would be a financial success should be entitled to reap the benefits. There is then the case of the debenture holders, who are having their rights abrogated. Machinery which could not be manufactured in this country was supplied from abroad, and in payment the foreign manufacturers of machinery were prepared to accept debenture stock. Under this Bill their prior rights are to be taken away. Suppose the Argentine Government sail that, in the case of British money invested in the Argentine, the prior rights of the holders of debenture stock were to be taken away, what would be the attitude of the Government with a view to protecting those debenture holders? I ask hon. Members to realise that which they are doing when they allow this Bill to go through. I can only say that I am perfectly certain it will have a very serious effect on British credit in the future.
I am delighted that this industry is to be continued, and there are obvious reasons why it should be continued. During the last War there was a very great shortage of sugar, and the fact that we are able to produce in this country some part of our sugar will be a very great help in our line of defence in future. But I would warn hon. Members that this particular Bill, which reorganises the sugar industry, savours most unpleasantly of Socialist principles, of principles of nationalisation and, what is more important still, because no right of appeal to the courts has been allowed, it savours very unpleasantly of principles of communistic confiscation.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: As this is the last occasion perhaps for a long time when sugar will be dealt with in this House, I would like in a few sentences to sum up the Bill as I see it. It is perfectly true that in the case of all subsidies, when the problem of their continuance or their removal is discussed, hon. Members have a good deal of pressure upon them. As one hon. Member sitting below the Gangway said, hon. Members representing the various divisions which are to participate in the largesse of the Minister, or of any Ministers, do not mind from where that largesse arrives so long as it arrives in some way. I have condemned the action of the Government time and again in regard to their sugar legislation, but lurking at the back of my mind there has always been an element of sympathy with those who were obliged not only to satisfy their own conscience, but to satisfy at the same time the pressure put upon them by hon. Members in all parts of the House.
There is this to be said for the final Bill; it is a very definite step forward. It does not go as far as I would like to see it go, and my opinions on the sugar subsidy have been well known for a long time. One step has been the establishment of a Corporation, and I hope this will lead to another step. We have placed on the Corporation three gamekeepers to see that the poachers do not get away with too much Treasury finance. We have established a Commission to watch the Corporation. In everything that it does the Corporation must proceed to the Commission to get its approval, and, having secured the Com-

mission's approval, it must have the approval of the Minister, the Treasury, and so forth. It seems to me that it would have been far better, perhaps much less complex and probably a good deal more efficient, if the right hon. Gentleman had taken one step beyond the point to which he has already been forced, with the Corporation and the Commission and the multiplicity of gamekeepers to watch the poachers. I am, however, accepting that one-step-at-a-time principle here, and I am glad, despite my general opinion about the wisdom or otherwise of a sugar beet subsidy, that so much progress has been made.
I am not sure, however, that I can agree with the Parliamentary Secretary's summing up of the situation with regard to the profits that are to be made available for the owners of the Corporation. He told us that unless some incentive proposals existed over and above the 4 per cent. guaranteed annually, the industry would stagnate and would become inefficient, and that unless there was the inspiration given by the incentive proposals, that is to say, an additional profit to the shareholders, he did not think the industry would be efficient. I cannot understand the Parliamentary Secretary's reasoning, for in this scheme there is an undertaking to employ as many directors drawn from the various companies as are necessary to run the Corporation, and all the factories are to pay them the salary they hitherto received from their individual companies. There-fore, there will be the same directors receiving the same salaries, the same technicians, the same engineers and employés generally, with or without the incentive proposals.
The Parliamentary Secretary does not suggest that unless you give the incentive to the directors, the technicians or the employés, stagnation will come over the industry. He does not promise any additional income to them, but promises it to the shareholder. What inspiration is the shareholder to have on the activities of the directors? If there is no guarantee of an increased fee for the director, what inspiration will he have? It may be that this 5½ per cent. annual profit, almost guaranteed, is too much; it may be that 4 per cent. is far too much, in view of the history of sugar factories in this country. At all events, it seems to me


that if there is a real need for incentive proposals, clearly they ought to apply to the directors and right down to the average workman in the factory, and not merely to those who are shareholders in the Corporation. I cannot understand that side of the finance.
The annual cost is still to be £5,000,000, either in direct payments, in remission of Excise Duty, or in the Treasury forfeiting what otherwise might have been received. In one way or another the cost will be approximately £3 per week for every person employed in producing, transporting and transforming sugar beet into refined sugar. I do not think there are many Members in this House who, if they had at their disposal a sum of money large enough to give £3 per week to every person employed in any industry, would have any difficulty in solving the unemployment problem. It would be a comparatively easy thing to do. The value of the Bill to agriculture is a value to a small proportion of agriculture. After all, there are only 39,000 farmers producing sugar beet, and many of them are small producers growing small quantities. On the whole, it may be said that 40,000 farmers produce sugar beet out of a total of 385,000 farmers, and when it is said that this Bill is a great contribution to our agricultural life, I will say that it is a great contribution to a small portion of agriculture, but that broadly and generally speaking it has not that effect.
I do not wish to waste the time of the House any further, for sugar has been debated long enough in this House and so frequently that it has almost become sour. There is, however, one point I would like to emphasise before I conclude, and it concerns the employés within the factories. I refer to compensation. If employés, as a result of the efficiency imposed on the Corporation under the new régime, should be displaced, they ought to be catered for. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will as far as possible use his influence to see that that does take place. There will then at all events be some satisfaction for those who have been hostile to sugar subsidies from the commencement, who have watched the complete transformation of the original situation as we knew it in 1925 to the new Corporation

in 1936, in that we shall know that displaced workers will be treated fairly and squarely.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I am sure there is one sentiment that has been uttered to-night with which those of us who have been in close contact with this problem and this Bill for many months will heartily agree, and it is that sugar has been debated long enough in this House. Tonight we ask the House to come to a decision, and we ask that that decision should be in favour of maintaining the sugar industry in this country. The Debate which has taken place has ranged over many points both large and small. Hon. Members who support the Government have asked certain questions. The hon. Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) asked to be reassured as to the position of the growers of a certain tonnage of beet on a certain acreage, and I gave him again the assurance I gave in Committee that there can be no doubt that it will be lawful under the Bill as drafted to have contracts so as to provide for the quantity of beet to be purchased from a stated acreage no matter what tonnage that acreage may produce. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor), from whom I was delighted to have the pledge of support for the Bill in the Division Lobby, raised one or two questions.

Mr. C. S. TAYLOR: I said I supported the continuation of the industry, but I did not like certain Clauses in the Bill.

Mr. ELLIOT: If the hon. Member supports the continuation of the industry, he supports this Bill for a vote against the Bill to-night is a vote for the discontinuance of the industry. If the Bill is defeated to-night, the hon. Member will be so far responsible for it. Let hon. Members on the Opposition benches also grasp that fact I am sure that they fully realise it, say what they will about the desirability or not of some particular machinery The decision as to that machinery has been hammered out in Committee and in the Report stage, and now we come to the Third Reading. It is for its now to continue or discontinue, to kill or to keep the industry, and a vote against the Bill is a vote for killing the sugar beet industry in this country.

Mr. TAYLOR: One might hold the opinion that the Bill did not go far enough and vote against the Bill because it did not go far enough.

Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Member should, by this time, have enough experience of Parliamentary procedure to know that a vote which destroys a Bill, destroys the project of the Bill, whether you think it does not go far enough or whether you think it goes too far. The only reason for voting against the Third Reading of the Bill is that you have the object of killing the Bill and stopping the industry and those who vote against the Bill to-night take that responsibility.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The big stick.

Mr. ELLIOT: It is not the big stick. The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), I know, does not flinch from a. decision on a Parliamentary point. He knows that when he votes against the Bill he votes to end the Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: To end the Government. That is what I vote for.

Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Member is now raising the further question of confidence in the Government. I am prepared to take up both issues. I am certain that, as a result of the vote which is to be taken to-night, the sugar beet industry will be continued in this country. The hon. Member for Eastbourne dealt with the question of an appeal to the courts. That was dealt with at great length upstairs. It was made clear by the Lord Advocate that the Bill in no way limited any rights, but merely kept in the hands of Parliament a task which Parliament alone was fit to accomplish. It was pointed out that the Bill did not ask the courts to decide a question which they could only decide if given minute and meticulous directions by Parliament, which would have amounted to Parliament itself deciding the case in advance. Those points were thoroughly considered in Committee. We have, at any rate, to congratulate ourselves upon this fact—that praise for the Bill has come from many quarters of the House, not merely from the Government side but from the Opposition side as well. We have had support from regions far outside the normal area of support for this Government. We have had the admission that the Bill is an improvement on what has, gone before and that it has been

modified, in accordance with the will of the Standing Committee and the House, and not merely presented, either to the House or to the Committee, in a "take it or leave it" fashion by the Government of the day.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) concluded by saying that he had a lurking sympathy with the Minister. I think that lurking sympathy of the hon. Member does come out of its lair at times and we appreciate it very much. We know the careful examination which the hon. Member has made of agricultural problems and that arouses a feeling of sympathy on our part for him. His power of mastery of these questions has been a credit to himself and to the work which he has devoted to these problems—all the more so, since it has left him with the feeling which was, I think, reflected in the report of the Executive Committee of the Labour party to their Brighton Conference in 1935. After all, it was that conference and not anybody on this side who said that the sudden withdrawal of all State assistance would be attended with serious consequences to agriculture and would expose sugar consumers to risks that could not be ignored.

Mr. STEPHEN: Who said that?

Mr. ELLIOT: The Labour party conference.

Mr. STEPHEN: Who was the speaker?

Mr. ELLIOT: It was a resolution passed by the conference. I think a certain divergence of opinion was shown on the benches opposite as the Debate proceeded. Nobody would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) or the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) had any of that lurking sympathy for the Bill which displayed itself in the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley. They drew their swords and advanced and gave no quarter. Their votes, at any rate, will be cast against the Third Reading of the Bill with full knowledge and with the desire to kill the Bill, even though it should bring the industry to an end.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough, although starting with the theory that the Bill continues employment in agriculture which he was glad to see continued, wound up with


the full-blown Free Trade theory, asking why should we grow sugar beet at all at home when cane sugar can be grown abroad at 4½ tons to the acre Why produce goods at home when, by not producing them at home, we can stimulate oversea trade and keep up the commerce of the country? The hon. Member for East Birkenhead even quoted the words of Disraeli, used in the Sugar Debate in this House nearly 100 years ago, but I wonder whether he remembers the context of his quotation or what those Debates were upon, or the case which Disraeli was making then and the opposition to it. The case which Disraeli was making was that, after we had freed the slaves in our British Colonies, it was hypocrisy for us to continue to buy sugar, grown by slave labour elsewhere, thereby encouraging the continuance of the institution of slavery. The line of argument then used against Disraeli, and on which he was defeated, is the line of argument which has led to what is in the minds of hon. Members opposite, below the Gangway, and has led to the condemnation of their attitude which the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Quibell) reiterated to-night. It is not the fit-St time, and it will not be the last time, that such condemnation will come from Labour against Liberal on this question of the employment of labour.
The argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough boiled down to this—that nobody had defended the finance of the sugar companies up to now. When you have a proposal for a subsidy starting at 19s., with the object of bringing people quickly into the industry, a subsidy which does not taper off to the point to which we have found it possible to bring it in 10 years, it inevitably means that those who start quickly, who are efficient, those, if you like, who come from abroad and who have had great experience, make large sums of money compared with those who enter the industry more slowly. I am not ashamed of proposals which have resulted in the establishment of £5,000,000 worth of food-producing machinery in this country and the maintenance of 400,000 acres under a remunerative crop. Those arrangements reflect no discredit either on those who originated them or on those by whom they have been carried out. In that experimental, pioneer

period, no doubt, large profits have been made by certain pioneers, though not by all. What the Bill does is to bring that period to a close. Those profits will no longer be gained and those advantages will no longer be secured. The industry has been reorganised, and if this Bill gets a Third Reading it will go ahead on a new basis. The experimental period is over, but there is no reason why this country or the House should be ashamed of the steps taken to bring the industry into operation.
The hon. Member for East Birkenhead argued strongly against any proposal of the kind and said that nobody had answered Sir Herbert Samuel. But Sir Herbert Samuel was answered and answered most eloquently, more by the absence than by the presence of one hon. Member. Where is the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. J. de Rothschild) to-night? Where does his party stand upon this question? Where did they stand upon it at the General Election? Did not the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely, in his constituency, wholeheartedly defend the continuance of the subsidy? Where is he to-night? He is outside arguing with Sir Herbert Samuel and I presume convincing him, because the hon. Member is now in this House and Sir Herbert is outside it. The fact that even the old guard of Liberalism cannot give a solid vote against this Measure shows that the arguments advanced by Sir Herbert Samuel do not appeal to the majority of people in this country and not even to the whole of the Liberal party.
The hon. Member for East Birkenhead, of course, said he was willing to support practical measures proposed for softening the blow to Labour. Those were the measures proposed in the majority report. Does he remember what those steps were? Does he remember that the practical steps proposed were, that those turned out of work by the stopping of this industry, would be helped by unemployment insurance in agriculture which it was hoped would then be on the Statute Book? That was the proposal which this House would have had to face if it had accepted the position indicated by the majority report and which would have had to be faced by Sri Herbert Samuel also, if he had convinced the House and if the industry had been brought to an end. It is that which has brought the


hon. Member for Brigg and the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) in to the state of mind indicated by their speeches to-night. They say in effect, "This machinery is not what we would like, yet we stand along with the majority of the House in desiring that sugar beet growing should continue and that the agricultural worker in East Anglia and elsewhere should not be thrown on the dole."
I do not wish to speak at length because we have already argued long and deeply on this question. The question of whether the protective duty should be reckoned up month after month and year after year and finally added to the total cost of the industry to the community is one on which, I suppose, we shall never come to any agreement. All I can say is that we on this side do not accept that argument and we never shall accept it. This proposal is for the maintenance of the industry. The machinery has been fully described by the Parliamentary Secretary and fully discussed by hon. Members since.
To-night we are launching a big new industry in Great Britain. We are turning from a temporary to what we hope will be a permanent basis. We are continuing a great agricultural experiment which has already proved of the utmost value in preventing the depression which otherwise, without any doubt, would have settled upon the Eastern Counties. We are completing the rescue of the Eastern Counties which was begun by the introduction of the turnip crop. When "Turnip" Townshend introduced this root crop into the rotation, he revolutionised the agricultural industry, but that achievement would be jeopardised if it had not been possible to keep the root crop in this country on a remunerative basis and as part of the arable rotation, as it will be under the provisions of this Bill. No practical agriculturist will deny that we have made a bold new experiment. We inlay be blamed by some for

going too far and by others for not going far enough, but it is an experiment which has been boldly conceived and vigorously executed. We have started with a chairman who is acknowledged, even or especially by the Opposition, to be an admirable man, free from all bias, and one with great experience in the service of the State in other capacities. Sir Francis Humphrys is a man who can well be put forward as the best man we could have chosen for the post of chairman of this Corporation and a man under whose auspices no sharp practice of any kind will find the slightest countenance.

I hope very much the House will give us a majority to-night, and a good majority. I hope very much that beyond the majority it will give us its good will, its good feeling, its encouragement, for a departure in agriculture which has now, after 10 years, passed its experimental stage. We are, after all, launching a British enterprise to-night. Let us Hunch it with a good heart. Let us launch it with support, not from one side only, but from every side of the House, and let us hope that hon. and right hon. Members opposite, who- have given us their sympathy in speech, will even go so far to-night as to carry that sympathy into the Division Lobby and give us their support for the Third Reading of the Bill.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance as to what the position of distant growers will be, seeing that this year will not be affected under the Bill?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am not able to go beyond the assurance which I gave in Committee, that that would be one of the first matters to which the Commission would give its attention.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 125.

Division No. 144.]
AYES.
[8.3 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Bull, B. B.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Belt, Sir A. L.
Burghley, Lord


Albery, I. J.
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Blair, Sir R.
Butler, R. A.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Blindell, Sir J.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Boulton, W. W.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Assheton, R.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Carver, Major W, H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cary, R. A.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G,
Cautley, Sir H. S.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)




Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Porritt, R. W.


Christie, J. A.
Hopkinson, A.
Pownall, Sir A. Assheton


Cobb, Sir C. S.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Radford, E. A.


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hulbert, N. J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Hunter, T.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Jackson, Sir H.
Remer, J. R.


Critchley, A.
James, Wing-Commander, A. W.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Crooke, J. S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Rowlands, G.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Culverwell, C. T.
Kirkpatrick, W. M.
Salmon, Sir I.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Salt, E. W.


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Latham, Sir P.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


De Chair, S. S.
Lees-Jones, J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


De la Bère, R.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Scott, Lord William


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Levy, T.
Selley, H. R.


Denville, Alfred
Lewis, O.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Dorman-Smith, Major R, H.
Liddall, W. S.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Drewe, C.
Lindsay, K. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lloyd, G. W.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Smithers, Sir W.


Duggan, H. J.
Loder, Captain Hon. J de V.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Loftus, P. C.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dunglass, Lord
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Dunne, P. R. R.
MacAndrew Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Eales, J. F.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Spens, W. P.


Eastwood, J. F.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Eckersley, P. T.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Elliston, G. S.
McKle, J. H.
Storey, S.


Emery, J. F.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Magnay, T.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Entwistle, C. F.
Maitland, A.
Sutcliffe, H.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Fleming, E. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Markham, S. F.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M,
Titchfield, Marquess of


Furness, S. N.
Maxwell, S. A.
Touche, G. C.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Train, Sir J.


Gibson, C. G.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Gledhill, G.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Wakefield, W. W.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Wallace, Captain Euan


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ward, Lieut.-Col Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Moreing, A. C.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Grimston, R. V.
Morgan, R. H.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Warrender, Sir V.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Wells, S. R


Guy, J. C. M.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Hanbury, Sir C.
Munro, P.
Willoughby de Fresby, Lord


Hannah, I. C.
Nail, Sir J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Hannon, Sir p. J. H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Harbord, A.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wise, A. R.


Harvey, G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Palmer, G. E. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
peake, O.
Wragg, H.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Peat, C. U.



Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Penny, Sir G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hepworth, J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Captain Walerhouse and Mr.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Petherick, M.
Cross.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.





NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Bellenger, F.
Dalton, H.


Acland, R, T. D. (Barnstaple)
Benson, G.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)


Adams, D. (Consett)
Broad, F. A.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Day, H.


Adamson, W. M.
Buchanan, G.
Dobble, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Burke, W. A.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)


Ammon, C. G.
Cluse, W. S.
Ede, J. C.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cocks, F. S.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Banfield, J. W.
Compton, J.
Fletcher, Lt. Comdr. R. T. H.


Barnes, A. J.
Cove, W. G.
Foot, D. M.


Batey, J.
Daggar, G.
Frankel, D.







Gardner, B. W.
Leonard, W.
Short, A.


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Leslie, J. R.
Silverman, S. S.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Logan, D. G.
Simpson, F. B.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
McGhee, H. G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Maclean, N.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mander, G. le M.
Stephen, C.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Marklew, E.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Groves, T. E.
Marshall, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Mathers, G.
Thorne, W.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Maxton, J.
Thurtle, E.


Hardie, G. D.
Messer, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Harris, Sir P. A.
Montague, F.
Vlant, S. P.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walkden, A. G.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Oliver, G. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Owen, Major G.
Watson, W. McL.


Hicks, E. G.
Paling, W.
Welsh, J. C.


Holland, A.
Parker, H. J. H.
White, H. Graham


Hollins, A.
Parkinson, J. A.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Hopkin, D.
Pethlck-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Jagger, J.
Potts, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Price, M. P.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Pritt, D. N.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Quibell, J. D.
Windsor, w. (Hull, C.)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Riley, B.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)



Lathan, G.
Rowson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lawson, J. J.
Sexton, T. M.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.


Lee, F.
Shinwell, E.



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Army Act and Air Force Act to be in force for specified times.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.13 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. I would like to ask for guidance on this point. This Bill is scarcely ever debated on Second Reading, and I understand that there has been a difference this year in so far as there are one or two alterations in the Bill. I submit that when the Clauses which have been altered come on, the Minister in charge should explain to the Committee what those alterations are; that instead of our having to ask whether each Clause has been altered, he should draw attention to those particular Clauses which have been altered. Generally speaking, that is done on the Second Reading, but the case with this Bill is exceptional.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will, of course, realise that the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill

is a rather peculiar Bill and that a Second Reading Debate on it is extraordinarily difficult, but I am sure the Minister in charge will bear the point which he has raised in mind when we come to the Clauses which, in point of fact, make Amendments.

Clause 3 (Prices in respect of billeting) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 57 (2).)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The SECRETARY of STATE, for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): This Clause effects a formal Amendment in order to remove a technical difficulty. It provides that an officer, who is not a member of the Army, but is a member of the Air Force or the Navy, in supreme command will have the right to commute or remit a sentence of a court-martial which has been confirmed by a senior officer.

CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 146.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

8.16 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War to give the reasons why the proposed change has been suggested and some argument to show that


it is either desirable or necessary. When I first read the Clause the impression formed on my mind was very unfavourable. The Clause proposes to repeal part of Section 146 of the Army Act. That Section deals with restrictions on the right of serving officers to take part in certain forms of local government. It provides that serving officers are not allowed to be sheriffs, and that part of the Section is not to be touched by this Clause. It also provides that a serving officer shall not be a mayor or alderman, or hold office in a municipal corporation. It goes on later to say that these restrictions shall not apply in the case of a county council. That part of the Section with regard to eligibility for membership of a municipal or county council is to be struck out by the new Clause. I am not concerned to argue whether Section 146 of the Army Act is good or bad, but I am concerned to observe that it is something that has been laid down by Parliament, and, as I understand, it is now proposed to take the matter out of the hands of Parliament and to deal with it departmentally. In this Section we are dealing with the limitation of the right of certain citizens to take part in local government, and that is pre-eminently a matter which should be decided by Parliament and should not be left to be decided by a Department of State or any Minister.
It may be that Section 146 is not working very well for some reason, and if that be the case the better course would be for the Secretary of State to propose that an alteration in the regulations laid down in that Section should be confirmed by Parliament. I do not like the suggestion that it is to be taken out of the hands of Parliament and to be decided by the Minister or the Army Council or whoever it may be. There is no doubt about that being the intention, for in the Memorandum to the Bill under the heading "Clause 5," there occur these words:
The position of officers and soldiers in regard to candidature for local government councils will then fall to be dealt with by departmental regulations.
It may be argued that in practice it is difficult, perhaps even impossible in some cases, for members of the Army to take part in local government. That can be argued of almost any occupation. It

may be argued that a doctor or a lawyer is too busy to sere on a local council; nevertheless, some of them do so serve. If it be argued that there are some special reasons of State why it is not desirable that members of the Army should take part in local government, that appears to me to raise serious issues which should be decided by Parliament and not by any Department. I took the precaution of warning the Financial Secretary that I was going to raise this matter, and I hope that the Minister will be able either to say that he does not propose to proceed with the Clause, or to give some serious reason why this departure of practice should be made. Otherwise, the House ought not to pass the Clause. Anything that tends to differentiate between those who are serving the armed forces of the Crown and ordinary citizens is to be deplored. We do not wish this country to create anything corresponding to the military caste which we see in some other countries and which always ends in an ultimate clash between the military and the civil authorities. If we are to be told that those serving in the armed forces are to have their civil rights restricted, we ought to be told the reasons, and the restriction should be specifically laid down by Parliament.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: This is one of those matters which surprises one at first sight because it deals with complicated things that are not easily understood by civilians. I am not sure what is the definition of an officer on active service, and I do not know whether it includes a man on reserve. This is one of the sections of the Army Act that one can easily overlook. It was news to me that an officer on active service cannot serve on a municipal council but, can serve on a county, district, or parish council. I do not know why such a distinction was made. Was it because the county council was not looked upon as a very dangerous body at the time the regulation was made? As I understand it the present position is that a serving private soldier cannot in any circumstances serve upon any municipal body or local authority unless he gets the authority of his officer, and for all practical purposes that rules the private soldier out of active service as a civilian. But according to this Section of the Army Act:


An officer of the Regular Forces on the active list within the meaning of any Royal Warrant for regulating the pay and promotion of the Regular Forces"—
I am not sure what is the definition of "within the meaning of any Royal Warrant"—
shall not be capable of being elected or nominated to be Sheriff in any county
but he is capable of serving on certain local authorities, which gives him a right over and above that enjoyed by the private soldier. The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) says that he wants those who are serving to be put on the same footing as civilians, but does he want the same right for the ranker soldier as the officer has at present? That is another issue, and we should have a great deal to say in favour of that view, but I wish to hear what the Government have to say as to the exact position of an officer at the present time. Personally, and I think I speak for most of my hon. Friends, I should not support officers having rights in this matter over and above those of the common soldier. If it is true that the common soldier cannot serve upon any local authority while he is in the Army it seems invidious that an officer should have any such right.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. DUNCAN: I only intervene because I was interested in this matter when, on 29th March last year, the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) moved an Amendment to this particular Section of the Army Act with the object of giving a private soldier the same rights as an officer. I took the opposite view, that neither an officer nor a soldier should be allowed to serve on county councils and parish councils. The reason I then gave was that county councils have changed since the days of Queen Victoria, when Section 146 of the Army Act was passed. County council elections are being fought more and more on political lines. That is a point I would commend to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis). Last year I instanced London, Durham and Glasgow as places where local government elections are fought on political lines, and no doubt other hon. Members could give other instances. I wanted to keep both officers and private soldiers out of party politics. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Camborne (Lieut.-Com-

mander Agnew) reinforced what I said, and in reply to us the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) who was then Financial Secretary to the War Office, said:
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Camborne (Lieut.-Commander Agnew) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) suggested that they were in agreement, at any rate with the restrictive portion of the new Clause, but they propose to disqualify an officer from being elected or becoming a member of the county council in the same way as a soldier at the present time is disqualified. I think there is a great deal to be said for their proposal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1935; col. 2235, Vol. 229.]
I suppose that Clause 5 of this Bill is the result of the consideration given by the War Office and the Air Ministry to the promise made on that occasion by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chorley. It is, I think, a compromise between the hon. Member for Gorbals and myself.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Oh, no. No compromise.

Mr. DUNCAN: I should like to stop both officers and private soldiers from serving on county councils at any rate, because they are becoming political, but the hon. Member for Gorbals would like them to be allowed to serve. I think the suggestion of the War Office, if I am interpreting it aright, is that, generally speaking, there should be a restriction, but that in particular cases, where there may be advantage to the War Office or particular advantage to the district concerned, a particular officer or a particular soldier may get special permission from the War Office to stand for election.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What special occasions would there be?

Mr. DUNCAN: That is one of the things which I am hoping my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War will explain. I am hoping that the view I have offered is the correct one, and if it is I shall be completely satisfied.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am very much interested in this Clause, because I drafted the Amendment which was put on the Paper last year. I went through the Army Act previous to the discussion on the Bill last year, and I made this


discovery, and then I drafted the Amendment and my hon. Friends put it before the House. I also raised the matter on the Army Estimates this year, and asked what had been done in fulfilment of the promise made by the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) when Financial Secretary. The Secretary of State for War gave me an answer that a mistake had evidently been made last year by the representative of the War Office, that there really was not anything wrong and that he was taking steps to put it right. I did not myself catch the statement of the Secretary of State for War and had my attention drawn to it by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who said that those were the words of the Minister—that there really was nothing wrong but that they were taking steps to put it right. Possibly he will be able to explain his words.
Like the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis), I take objection to the action of the War Office in making this a matter of Departmental regulation. It is of the utmost importance that the House should keep those things in the position in which they can come before the House and be dealt with. The practice has been growing up in the administration of the Army that, when a difficulty occurs, it is taken out of the Army Act and becomes a matter of departmental regulation. It practically passes out of the direct control of the House of Commons. For example, there is the question of church parades. Hon. Members who felt very strongly on the question of compulsory church parades used to put down Amendments year after year to the Army Act. They now find that this has become a matter of departmental regulation. The volume of opinion was growing so much that it was almost certain that what happened on another question would happen in that connection also. The War Office, having got protection for itself from the growing opinion of democracy, continues to carry on its treatment of the soldier on the traditional lines which they think ought to be observed. I do not want that to happen.
The House, more especially in these days, ought to have the rights of the soldier before it every year in the Army

Annual Bill. It may be said that such questions can come up on the Estimates in the same way as any other question, but although one may raise a particular question on the Estimates, other hon. Members can raise other questions, and the discussion wanders here, there and everywhere. When questions of this sort come up in the discussion of the Army Bill, it is in a precise and definite way, and upon the particular subject to which you wish to draw the attention of the House.
I agree with the protest made by the hon. Member for Colchester. The position that he has taken up that no unnecessary distinction should be made between the soldier and the civilian is very sound. Soldiers, sailors and airmen have certain rights; for example, the right to become members of industrial organisations. When the Unemployment Bill was before the House last year, questions were addressed to Ministers on the subject, and they answered that there was that right and they made a parade of the fact, although they knew that the right was ineffective and could not be used. I want hon. Members and members of the Forces to be clear with regard to their rights. There ought to be the right of representation on local authorities, in this House and anywhere else, as citizens. They may be called upon to take part in a campaign, if war breaks out again. Surely those men are entitled to be in the House if they can find an electorate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Clause has nothing to do with election to Parliament.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am sorry if the illustration that I was using about the right to Parliament caused hon. Members to be under a misapprehension that the Clause had anything to do with election to Parliament, and I am very grateful that you have taken the opportunity of saving hon. Members from that misapprehension. I can assure you, and through you hon. Members, that I was simply seeking to use that as an illustration of the Clause in the Bill to which this has reference. The position taken up by the Independent Labour Party on the right of the officer to be elected to a county council was that that right should extend to every member of the Force


and not only to the officer. If the man serving in the Army can find an electorate to elect him to the county councils, he should be entitled to go there, when he can get there. Members of local authorities may find, on occasion, that they are not able to attend. I have known Members of this House not to be able to attend on occasion, for business reasons. If an electorate, knowing the position of the member of the Forces, desires that person to represent them in the county council, the individual concerned should have the right to do so.
Reasons may be given, and the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Duncan) gave one, why it is not desirable that soldiers should take part in politics, but I put it to hon. Members opposite that they know that that is very largely not the case with respect to officers who are in politics. This House is full of them. I know they are retired, or on half pay, but that does not get away from the fact that soldiers are in politics. They have their vote. Yet, while they have their vote for the county council, they are not to be allowed to develop their party politics. That is quite wrong. They are men like ourselves; they are men with ideals and with a desire to see great changes in the locality in which they are, and the needs of which they know. They think and reason like the rest of us, and they are entitled to electoral rights and to representative rights, because the representative rights really ought to go with the electoral rights. I would not be a party to any attempt to take from one section its right in this respect, but I would insist that the same right should be given to the other section of the forces.
This matter is to be governed by Departmental regulations, and very probably we shall not have anything like the opportunity that we have to-night to discuss it when the Estimates come before us again. This is probably the only occasion that we shall get unless the matter comes before the House. When these Departmental regulations come into effect throughout the rank and file of the Army, there may be so much discontent because of the way in which they are being treated under the Departmental regulations that the attention of Parliament may be directed to it.
I believe that the way in which the Secretary of State is handling this matter is simply an attempt to maintain the caste or class privilege way of dealing with it—that the officer class will in effect be allowed to go on acting as they have been acting all along. The hon. Member shakes his head; he has a different view. As a realist, and as one who looks at what is happening to-day, I am sorry I cannot accept his assurance. I would not take the assurance of the Secretary of State for War or the Prime Minister unless we got it as a right given to the individual by Statute. I would only take it if there were statutory provision for equal treatment of all concerned, and the only proper treatment is to give to those men, whether they are privates, corporals, sergeants, majors, colonels, or whatever they may be, the right to be elected to a county council, just as a major is entitled to be elected to this House and become Secretary of State for War—and no doubt in many cases they would make a better job of it. I am quite conscious that, after the proceedings of last week, the drilling and discipline on the other side of the House will not enable us to get justice for the rank and file of the Army, but I hope that the men in the regiments will agitate for full citizen rights such as are enjoyed by any other members of the community.

8.55 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Victor Warrender): The history of this subject goes back to the Debate on the Army (Annual) Bill last year, and something that the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) said just now has given me a clue of which I was not aware before. He tells us that it was he who drafted the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). That Amendment was drafted under a complete misapprehension, and, owing to the fact that very little notice was given of it, the subsequent Debate was also based on a complete misapprehension. Now we can fasten the blame for leading the House astray on the hon. Member for Camlachie. If I recite the history of this question, I think I shall be able to answer the complaints, if complaints they may be called, which have been voiced on both sides of the House this


evening. In the first place, it is quite incorrect to assume that, under Section 146 as it now stands, any private soldier or non-commissioned officer is deprived of the right of standing for election to a municipal body. In fact, other ranks in the Army have been eligible for election to these bodies for a great many years. Section 146 merely deprives officers of the right to hold office as mayors or in county boroughs, but enables them to be members of county councils. The effect, therefore, of Clause 5 as it appears in the Bill this year is, not to deprive men and noncommissioned officers of rights which they previously possessed, but to give to officers the same rights which other ranks have always had.

Mr. STEPHEN: I would like to be clear about this matter. May I ask the hon. Baronet whether, under the Clause as it stands, it is the case that if a private soldier is serving in, say, the Gordon Highlanders, there is nothing in military law to prevent him from becoming a candidate for, say, the Aberdeen Town Council?

Sir V. WARRENDER: No; under this Clause he will certainly be able to become a candidate for the Aberdeen Town Council, and in point of fact he always has been able to become a candidate for such a body. The point is that the officer has not had that right, and we are merely giving to the officers the right which the men and non-commissioned officers have always had.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not a fact that, while the soldier has had that right, it was subject to the consent of his superior officer?

Sir V. WARRENDER: If I may be allowed to proceed, I shall be able to explain the position. The result of this Clause will be that in law regular officers on the active list, and all other ranks, will be eligible to hold office on local government bodies. The point has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) and other hon. Members that we are proceeding to implement our desires in the wrong way. Hon. Members object to the rights of officers and men to serve on these bodies being made subject to departmental

control. Our reason for taking that line is that, in 1925, a committee presided over by Lord Blanesburgh went into the whole question of the candidature of Crown servants in regard to local government activities, and they came to the unanimous recommendation that servants of the Crown should be eligible to hold these offices, but that they should only do so upon the discretion of their Departments, and that is the practice which holds to-day in the great Departments of the State. It so happens, however, that we have had this section in the Army Act handed down to us from past years, and the Army is thus out of line with the practice in other Services of the Crown.
We, therefore, propose that officers and men should be put upon the same basis as civilians who are also in the service of the Crown—given the same liberties and upon the same basis. There is no question of the Army Council wishing to restrict the liberties of either officers or men in the way they spend their leisure time, but we must have some say in the matter and, indeed, the Blanesburgh Committee recommended that this should be done, for they stated in paragraph 72 of their report:
It has been urged that municipal elections are as political as Parliamentary elections. This may be true, but the work after election is primarily administrative. Further, the objection to Parliamentary candidature, that it is an attempt to make a fusion of the functions of employer and employé, does not here apply. On the other hand, there are Departments whose duties largely consist in the regulation of local authorities, and in these cases it would be clearly wrong to allow candidature. It is to us unthinkable that an official of the Ministry of Health should serve on a local authority.
The Committee definitely took into consideration that there might be conditions under which it was undesirable that servants of the Crown should take part in municipal government. Our chief concern is that the activities of members of His Majesty's military forces should not conflict with their service in the Army and, although each care would naturally be treated sympathetically and upon its merits, we must obviously claim the right of refusing to both officers and men leave to take part in these activities if it is clear that they are going to interfere with their military duties or, to use the words again of the Blanesburgh Report:


Municipal candidature should be left, as at present, to Departmental discretion, subject to no moral or material interference with official duties.
It will be seen that we are not discriminating in any way as between officers and men. All we are doing is to give the officers exactly the same rights as the men have always possessed, and in those circumstances I hope my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing the Amendment. In reply to the point raised lay the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), this Clause only affects officers and men actually on the active list. Officers and men on the Reserve are naturally free to do what they like. There is one other point in connection with the first sentence of Section 146. We retain the inability of officers to become sheriffs. The reason is that, if they happen to be pricked, they will be forced to undertake the office of sheriffs. Obviously officers and men have to be protected from such compulsory service, so it is necessary to retain the protection that is given in the first sentence. I hope the Committee will realise that we are not endeavouring in any way to restrict private activities. In fact we are going very much further than the Amendment that my hon. Friend drafted last year.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: In the event of a private soldier or officer desiring to become a candidate, is the decision taken by his Commanding Officer on his own discretion or does the Commanding Officer merely have to enforce a regulation applicable to all cases affecting officers and soldiers wishing to become candidates and, if so, do the regulations prohibit such people becoming candidates in any event?

Sir V. WARRENDER: When the Bill becomes law we shall have to amend the King's Regulation, laying down that before either an officer or a man can agree to stand for election to any of these bodies he must get the concurrence of the Army Council and, if and when these cases arise, which I imagine will be very infrequently, they will come to the War Office and each case will be considered by the Army Council.

Mr. LAWSON: I take it that the present situation is that a soldier must have the consent of his Commanding Officer.

Mr. BENSON: In how many cases has permission been granted in the last 12 months?

Sir V. WARRENDER: I could not say but I should imagine, if at all, in very few cases.

Mr. BENSON: It is rather extraordinary that the representative of the Army should come to the House without relevant and obvious information.

Mr. LOGAN: Is it not possible that some soldiers on the Reserve may still be on the active list, and would it apply to those cases?

Sir V. WARRENDER: Any man who is on the Reserve will not be affected.

Mr. MANDER: It does not seem to me that the position outlined here is very different from what happens in civil life. An employé has to get the permission of his employer, as he may have to attend meetings in the afternoon. No reference has been made to the Air Force. I assume that all these facilities are now open to officers and other ranks of the Air Force.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that that arises on the next Clause.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I make no apology for having brought forward the Amendment last year. It has been of service in helping to clear the position and to make it known not only to Members of the House but also to the men concerned, who very probably have been unaware of their rights. The Financial Secretary seemed for some reason or other to think that I had erred very greatly. My resources are very limited with regard to the King's Regulations and the rest of it. It seems an extraordinary thing that, with half a day's notice, there was no one in the Department who knew about it. I am not blaming the Department over much because of what was said about these applications being so infrequent. It is of the utmost importance that the fact of that infrequency should be emphasised. It is precisely similar to what I drew attention to previously—the right of a soldier to join his trade union. Soldiers are not aware of it, but I hope they are going to become aware of it and that we are going to have hundreds of soldiers becoming candidates for local authorities. If as a result of this Amendment we find hundreds of privates and non-commissioned


officers serving on local authorities in the future, it will have been of the greatest service to the cause of the working class that this right of the soldiers has been made known.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: I should like to elucidate a further detail from my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the War Office. Should I be correct in saying that it is not the intention of the War Office to lay down any general Departmental regulations depriving any particular class of men or officers on the active list of the right to sit upon any particular kind of local body, and that all that is intended, is to lay down regulations to deal with individual applications to exercise the right to join these bodies?

9.7 p.m.

Sir V. WARRENDER: Yes, the Regulation will be amended so as to bring the War Office into line with other Government Departments in this matter. Any officer or man who is invited or wishes to become a candidate for a municipal governing body will make an application which will be considered on its merits by the Army Council.

CLAUSE 6.—(Application of Part I to Air Force Act.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. MANDER: Is the position of officers and other ranks in the Air Force, which has been exactly the same as has obtained in the Army, now to be altered exactly to the same extent? I imagine that that is so, but I should like to know whether that is really the position.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The position is exactly the same.

CLAUSE 7.—(Amendments of Air Force Act, ss. 108.4, 115.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.8 p.m.

Sir P. SASSOON: This is an Amendment of Sections 108A and 115 of the Air Force Act, and the reason for it is that, as hon. Members know, the Army

is organised on a geographical basis and an Army Command covers a particular area of the country, and together they make up a mosaic covering the whole country, whereas the Royal Air Force is organised on a functional basis. Royal Air Force areas and Commands may therefore include units stationed in any part of the country, according to the functions which these units perform. In these circumstances the words, "in any district or place" in Sections 108A and 115 of the Air Force Act are inappropriate to the Air Force, and the purpose of the Amendments in Clause 7 of the Bill is not to widen the powers of the Act in relation to emergency billeting and emergency requisitioning, but to enable them to be applied effectively by avoiding the geographical limitation. The Amendments do not affect the rank of the officer empowered to issue the requisitions, but the words, "holding any appointment designated for the purposes of this Section by the Air Council," are added to enable the power to issue emergency requisitions, for instance, the provision of motor-cars or vehicles to be given to an auxiliary Air Force officer in command of a station containing a "mobilisation pool."

CLAUSE 8.—(Amendment of Air Force Act, s. 175.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir P. SASSOON: This is an Amendment of Section 175 of the Air Force Act and it is to bring the retired Air Force officer into line with the retired Army officer. The retired Army officer liable to recall is, unlike the retired Air Force officer, a member of the Reserve and, as such, he is subject to the Army Act as soon as he is ordered on duty. The retired Royal Air Force officer is subject to the Air Force Act when he is employed on Air Force service under the orders of a regular officer but not before he actually reports for such employment. The Amendment in Clause 8 of the Bill makes him subject to the Act as soon as he receives the order to rejoin.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 76.)

The following proviso shall be added at the end of Section seventy-six of the


Army Act (which relates to the limit of original enlistment):
Provided also that where a boy is enlisted before attaining the age of eighteen he shall be discharged upon a request to this effect being made by a parent or guardian if such request is made before the boy attains the age of eighteen and it is shown that the boy enlisted without the consent of the parent or guardian.—[Mr. Thurtle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. THURTLE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I am afraid that I cannot claim for this Clause the merit of novelty. It has been moved in this House for many years now, and, unfortunately, it has been defeated every time. I should like the House to realise that the fact that we bring it forward year after year is an indication that we think that we have a strong case for it. We would not bother to trouble Parliament with this new Clause year after year, if we did not think that we were trying to remedy an injustice which exists at the present time. I am hopeful that to-night we are to have it conceded. I hope that the Secretary of State will say that he sees no good reason why this small concession should not be made, and that he will be prepared to say that the safety of the British Empire would not be jeopardised by our being conceded this small change in military law. What is it for which we are asking in this Clause? It is recognised that the normal enlistment age for the Army is 18 years, and it so happens that on occasion boys misstate their age and get into the Army under the recognised normal age of 18. We want, by means of this Clause, to enable the parents or guardians of those boys, if they think fit, to make an application to get the boys out of the Service. The Clause does not refer to boys who enlist for special kinds of employment to be trained as tradesmen or as buglers and drummers, as the Army Regulations provide that such boys must have the consent of their parents. There is one other class. There are boys who enlist under the age of 17 contrary to the Regulations, and I believe that I am right in saying that it is the practice of the War Office in such cases, if the parent or guardian makes application, to release the boys in question. I believe that we shall be told to-night, as we have been told on other occasions, that

even when a boy is over 17 but under 18, if a case can be made out for his release on compassionate grounds, the War Office, in a number of cases, are prepared to grant the release. That may be so, and I do not dispute it. I am very glad that the War Office takes that attitude on occasion, but that really does not meet our case. We do not want boys under the age of 18 released on grounds of compassion. We are arguing to-night that parents should be able to get them out as a statutory right, and that is the point to which I am trying to persuade the Secretary of State to agree to-night.
In order that we may view this thing in its proper perspective I would point out that, for good or ill, we recruit our Army under what is known as the voluntary system. There may be differences of opinion as to how far in fact that system really is voluntary. There was a very distinguished soldier many years ago, Field-Marshal Lord Roberts, who always refused to describe this system as a voluntary system; he described it as conscription of hunger. Those who know the circumstances in which many men join the Army must feel that there is some truth in that statement. But I am not going into that point to-night. I want to deal with the circumstances in which these recruits get into the Army. The method of recruitment is for a, boy or a man voluntarily to engage himself to serve in the Army for a period of years. The War Office takes the view that he is too young to undertake such an engagement if he is under 18 years of age. That is the official view and that is why the official recruiting age is 18 years. We might argue that even 18 years of age, in view of the very serious nature of the Army contract, is too young for recruitment, but in any case I suggest to the House that boys under 18 years of age are certainly too young to take on the very serious obligation involved in enlistment in the Army.
I would invite the House to consider the nature of the Army contract. When a man enlists in the Army he does not merely pledge himself to serve his country for a given period of years, but he pledges himself definitely and irrevocably in certain circumstances to sacrifice his life and his limbs. That is the real nature of the Army contract, and I submit that it is of such a grave nature that we


ought not to expect boys under 18 years of age to be held to a contract of that kind. I am not a lawyer, but there must be lawyers in the House who know as well as I do what the law of the country is in regard to minors. The law says that because they are inexperienced and because of their lack of knowledge of the world minors must be protected against committing themselves to contracts for service or to financial contracts. Therefore, under the law so far as civilian life is concerned a minor, that is, a young person under 21 years of age, cannot be held to an engagement of a civil kind. If it is regarded as just that a young man under 21 cannot be held to any ordinary contract in regard to financial matters or in regard to a question of service, then it is a very grave injustice that a mere boy under 18 years of age should be held to the much graver contract of military service.
Properly considered, the contract to engage in military service is the most grave contract into which any citizen can enter. I call these young people boys, and I have done so deliberately, because young people under 18 years of age are boys. We know that in the more fortunate classes of life boys of that age are still schoolboys, still members of the top form at school, still players in the school cricket 11 or in the school football team. The parents of those boys would never dream of agreeing that they had sufficient knowledge of the world and sufficient experience to undertake a military contract. In the case of boys of the working class the position is not the same. Those boys, unfortunately, have usually to go to work when they are about 14 years of age, and possibly by the time they are 16 or 17 years old they have acquired a certain knowledge and experience of the world, but in effect they really are still boys, and far too young to be asked to undertake the very grave obligation, involving possibly the sacrifice of life and limb, of military service. The War Office, in fact, concedes the point that 18 is the lowest age at which recruits ought to be accepted. All that we are asking for now is that the House should accept the logic of that position and say that boys under that age shall not be accepted as recruits and that if they are inadvertently accepted the

parents or the guardians should have the right to get them released.
What are the objections to this proposal? It is said that when a recruit is accepted under age it involves the War Department in considerable trouble and expense when the recruit is released. If that be the case, why not apply the ordinary expedient which is adopted in all other cases? Why not ask the boy, the potential recruit, for his birth certificate? What is the objection to insisting upon the production of a birth certificate? If a boy wants to enter the Civil Service or the municipal service or any other kind of service it is usually necessary to produce his birth certificate. If a man or woman want an old age pension they have to produce a birth certificate. Why should the War Office talk about the cost of a birth certificate? As a Departmental matter the cost of the ascertainment of the age of any given person would be trifling. It is absurd to suggest that the cost is any serious matter.
A further objection raised is that if a birth certificate is insisted upon, boys who may not have been born in holy wedlock, boys who may be illegitimate, would be reluctant to have the fact brought to the notice of the authorities. The spokesman for the War Office said last year that if this fact was brought out it would spoil their chance of making good. It is positively absurd to talk in that way. I am glad to think that to-day, generally speaking, we take a much more enlightened view of that particular thing than we used to do. We do not regard it as anything like the grave stigma that it used to be considered in days gone by. The boy is not to blame for anything of that kind. A boy might, indeed, rise to a very distinguished office in the State although he was born in that way. Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that if the recruiting sergeant, or the colonel or the adjutant knew that he was not legitimate, that that would be any serious handicap to him in the Army.
Another reason given is that it would prevent boys enlisting in the Army under an assumed name. I wonder how many boys under the age of 18 have got such black pasts, have done such evil deeds that they find themselves under the necessity of enlisting in the Army under an assumed name! As a matter of fact there is not one of these arguments worthy of serious consideration, and I submit to the


right hon. Gentleman that he should tell his expert advisers that they ought not to insult the intelligence of the House by putting forward reasons of this kind for resisting the claim we are making to-night.
If the War Office insists that it is unable to compel potential recruits to produce a birth certificate, then surely we have a right to ask it to accept this alternative solution—to allow parents, if recruits have been obtained improperly, to have the right of getting them out of the Service. If there is a drawback, if they find that it is an inconvenience, I submit that it is a proper penalty which they should suffer for refusing to take the sensible and logical course of asking for the production of a birth certificate. If the War Office is prepared neither to do the one thing nor the other, neither to ask for the birth certificate nor to allow the parent to reclaim the boy, in effect it is acquiescing in a violation of its own regulations. It is a very unworthy thing for a great Department of State to stoop to that kind of action.
I do not wish to accentuate the class aspect of this question, but I should be lacking in my duty if I did not draw the attention of the House to the fact that this matter has a class aspect. The issue involves almost entirely the boys of poor parents. I have not any figures, but I feel safe in saying that hardly any of the boys of whom we are speaking come from well-to-do parents. If more of these boys came of well-to-do parents we should probably find this change taking place before long, because these parents would protest very vigorously and very properly. They would represent to the War Office that these young fools of under 18 who joined the Army in this way really did not know what they were doing, and they would make a strong case to the War Office for getting them released. Unfortunately we are not dealing with parents with influence with the War Office. We are dealing with poor parents, and these people have not the same power to influence responsible quarters as the parents of the boys who attend our public schools. Moreover, if it is a question of purchase—I think £20 in some cases will buy a boy out—£20 may be a mere bagatelle for well-to-do parents, but £20 is a prohibitive sum as far as working-class parents are concerned.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the working-class mother in regard to this question. It. is the unhappy fate of the working-class mother, as anyone knows who has contact with an industrial constituency, frequently to see her boy go off to join the Army. It may be through unemployment, unsatisfactory home conditions, or other reasons. If the boy is over 18 she shrugs her shoulders and puts up with it. She may have a quiet cry, but she dries her eyes; she accepts this blow as one of the inevitable blows poverty gives her. If the boy is under 18 even that mother feels that there is something wrong in the system which takes a mere boy and puts him into the Army for a period of years. So she goes along to her local Member of Parliament or somebody else who, she thinks, has influence, and asks if something cannot be done to get the boy out of the Army. It is for mothers of that kind we are arguing to-night.
Perhaps my manner is a little aggressive. It is not intended to be. It is furthest from my intention to-night to be at all aggressive. I want to get on the right side of the right hon. Gentleman, and I am drawing attention to these matters not because I want to score debating points, but because I am anxious to get the right hon. Gentleman and his Department to give this matter reconsideration. I aim in some difficulty as to what is the best method of approach. We have had many refusals in the past, and I am wondering what the real explanation of those refusals is. I imagine it must be because the permanent advisers of the War Office have suggested that our claim should be rejected. Again, to-night if the right hon. Gentleman refuses this claim he will no doubt be acting on the advice of his Departmental advisers. If I am wrong in that, I beg his pardon, but I think it is extremely unlikely that if his expert advisers were to tell him that this small concession might safely and properly be made, he would reject that advice. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman is a reactionary person himself, and if his advisers would say that he could make this concession it would be made.
Therefore, if he says that he is sorry he cannot concede the point I shall assume that he is doing so on the advice of his expert advisers. On that


assumption I am going to make a direct appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I am going to beg him to believe that it is conceivable that his expert advisers, with the best will in the world, may be mistaken. He knows enough of the history of the Army Act since the War to know that there have been many changes in that Act. He knows enough of the history of the Act to know that almost every one of those changes—they have been many and important—have been resisted by the expert advisers of the War Office. I do not exult over that fact, but I draw attention to it because it is evidence that these expert advisers, sincere though they may be, acting from the best possible motives, may give the wrong advice. I am going to suggest to him that he should bear this fact in mind, and bearing it in mind agree to give the matter his own direct careful personal attention.
I am going to give one reason why he should do that. I do not know what kind of new arguments he is going to bring before the Committee to-night, but if he brings new and cogent reasons why this claim of ours should be resisted I am sure the Committee will listen to them with great respect. If he does not do that, if he is going to use the old hackneyed, threadbare arguments which have been employed on other occasions, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, from the point of view of his own intellectual self-respect as a logical and reasonable man, to realise that it is time that this matter was reconsidered. I make that appeal with a certain amount of confidence, not because the right hon. Gentleman has promised me any concession, but because he has in the past given some proof that he is concerned with justice for the private soldier. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) will remember that many years ago when we were urging the abolition of the death penalty in the case of cowardice in front of the enemy, we got unexpected but powerful support from the right hon. Gentleman in favour of that change. It is true that he was then a private Member and has now reached Cabinet rank. There are some cynical people who say that when a private Member obtains Ministerial rank he promptly puts his passion for justice in told storage and does not

bring it out again until he goes out of office. I have a higher opinion of the right hon. Gentleman than that. I think that he still v ants to do justice to the private soldier, and for that reason I make a direct personal appeal to him to give this matter fresh consideration.
So far as his expert advisers are concerned, I would like co suggest to them, through the right hon. Gentleman, that they are not doing themselves justice in resisting this claim and in putting themselves at variance with public opinion in regard to it. The people of this country believe in the Army and are prepared to maintain it at a strength which is considered right and proper. I do not know how many recruits may possibly be lost by the change I am urging tonight. The number may be small or it may be large, but I am quite certain that, whatever the number may be, the people of this country are quite ready to make whatever improvements may be necessary in Army conditions in order to ensure that additional mature recruits are obtained to take the place of any of these boys who are lost to the Service. This country has a reputation in these matters. Even in times of crisis and grave national peril it has never been eager to push mere boys into the Service. I have said all I want to say on this issue. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Committee that the change we are suggesting is reasonable and just. It is a change which can be supported by the facts, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman again, as a believer in justice for the private soldier and as a just and reasonable man himself, to say that he will make this concession, or that he will give the matter very careful consideration with a view to bringing forward the suggested change next year.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. BENSON: It is only three minutes ago that I discovered that my name was down as a supporter of this proposed new Clause, and then it was pointed out to me by another hen. Member, but I must say, after having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle), that I am only too glad to be able to avail myself of the mistake. There was one point in the speech of my hon. Friend to which I


think the Secretary of State should reply, and that is the question of the age of 18, which was fixed by the Army Council itself as the age at which they desire to take boys. That figure of 18 was not fixed arbitrarily; the Army Council had some specific reason for fixing the age of 18. The reason was that they do riot want boys under that age. If 18 is the age at which it is desirable that boys should join the Army, and a particular boy is untruthful enough to make a mis-statement about his age and unruly enough to join the Army without his parents' or guardians' consent, why should these two facts turn a boy who otherwise would not be eligible for the Army on its own Regulations into a boy who is so eligible that once the Army have him they refuse to let him go?
I can understand that it causes trouble and expense to the Army Council if a boy enlists and gets his uniform, and then for his parents to wish him to leave. But, surely, that position could be met by some small financial penalty, and not by insisting that the boy shall serve his full service. It cannot be a very important matter for the Army. Surely there is not a large proportion of these youthful recruits who join without the consent of their parents and give a false age. There cannot be very many cases of that kind annually. It is no use pretending that this is likely to raise a serious problem for the recruiting authorities. It may be a very serious problem for some parents. It may also be a serious matter for some boys, who perhaps in a romantic moment run away from home to join the Army before reaching years of discretion, and who then find that they have made a great mistake. For the parents and the boys it may be a serious matter, but by no stretch of the imagination can it be regarded as a serious matter for the recruiting authorities. The hon. Member for Shoreditch has paid the right hon. Gentleman many compliments which I am not at all certain the right hon. Gentleman deserves, but I hope that at any rate he will attempt to earn them by agreeing to this Amendment.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I wish to support the new Clause. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) moved the Clause with a thoroughness that I have not heard in the House before, and he

mounted up one argument upon another in a most convincing way. Not only did he do, that, but he made an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. He handed to the right hon. Gentleman flowers that bloomed as fresh as they do in the spring, and he was really trying his best not only to get to the heart of the right hon. Gentleman, but to meet the arguments that are likely to be put forward. I do not think there is much that can be added to the remarks of the hon. Member for Shore-ditch upon this question.
I confess that I cannot understand why the War Office refuses to grant this request, which has been made in different forms at different times. On this occasion it is a. request that the consent of the parents should first have been given. On a previous occasion we asked that the birth certificate should be the test. I cannot understand why the War Office refuses this request, because it really involves comparatively few youths who are under 18 years of age. It is true, as the hon. Member for Shoreditch said, that the boy who enlists under the age of 18 takes upon himself the gravest responsibility that any human being can undertake. None of us is what might be called squeamish. None of us asks that boys should be treated in an effeminate way, but I do not think there is any hon. Member who will say that anyone can take upon himself a greater responsibility than that which is taken by a youth who joins the Army at an age when, as a civilian, he is a minor. In civilian life he is not legally able to undertake the most ordinary duties without his parents' consent, but when it comes to undertaking this military duty the War Office insists that the boy should be counted as having a legal status which he does not appear to have in ordinary civilian life.
There is another point I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman. As a rule these boys are members of working-class families, very often members of big families, and sometimes the eldest of the family. When they enlist they do so suddenly, without telling their parents beforehand that there is any possibility of their enlisting. If the parents could have five or 10 minutes to talk over with these boys the condition of the family, it is possible that they would be able to bring such influence to bear on them as to hinder them from taking the course


they contemplate. The parents would be able to tell the boys of their responsibility to the family and of the part they would be likely to play in a year or two's time. Sometimes at 17 years of age these boys are not getting very big wages, but at 18 or 19 they may perhaps become the mainstay of the family, and frankly it is this which sometimes leads the mother or the father to ask for the release of the boys. When the boys enlist without the knowledge of their parents, it is too late.
All the requests that can be put to the War Office have no effect, because the War Office have made up their mind to hold on to the boys. The War Office have been considerate enough to say that youths under 17 years of age should be released, and that is the legal practice. That was some concession, but I must admit that I cannot understand why the same does not apply to boys under 18. I shall be very interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply on this matter.
There is then the further point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Shore-ditch, that in the wealthy families there is no penalty in this matter. They are able to buy the boy out, and sometimes in their case £20 is a mere bagatelle, although to a working-class family it is prohibitive. It is unjust that the War Office should take advantage of the circumstances of a working-class family which makes it impossible for them to use the ordinary means that would be open to wealthier parents. I ask the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion to settle the question once and for all. The hon. Member for Shoreditch has already said that if the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that, he ought at least to give the matter serious consideration. I think that in fact it will be found to be a small matter.
I am sure that if they gave way on this point, the War Office would be able to get as many youths or men over 18, sometimes over 21, who are in a fairly good condition, or who have been rejected because they were just on the border-line. They would be able in that way to make good the numbers if they wanted to do so. I submit that the value which the War Office gets from having boys under 18 is neither worth the trouble it causes nor just to working-class parents.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I wish to support the Clause, and in doing so I would like to ask the War Minister to take note of the remarks of the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle), who in his pleadings paid a great many compliments to the right hon. Gentleman. To-night the hon. Member pleaded as I have never heard him plead before. I do not know whether he will be successful or not, because we have done that sort of thing during the past three or four years and we have never had any success. The Secretary of State for War said he could not give way and had no intention of giving way, and he even pointed out that the Labour party did not attempt to do anything in this respect when they were in office. We have had to admit that we did not do it when we had the chance but there are two pleas which I would make in that respect. The first is that we were overloaded with other matters and had not time to deal with this question. Secondly, as the years have rolled past, the Army has gradually improved and now occupies a status equal to other grades of employment. Now that it is regarded as an honourable occupation—if one may put it in that way—the same kind of treatment should be meted out to those entering it as is meted out to entrants into other occupations.
In every other grade of Government employment it is necessary for a boy or girl on entry to produce a birth certificate. In other walks of life an employer is liable to prosecution who does not require a birth certificate. If that is necessary, in mining for instance, as it is, why should it not be necessary also in the case of the Army? If the occupation is worth anything it is worth requiring truthfulness from those entering it, and the recruiting officer ought to insist on a boy who wishes to join the Army producing the record of his birth so that there can be no question afterwards.
This would have a good effect in various ways. First, there could be no crying out afterwards and asking the Secretary of State to exercise his clemency in favour of boys who have joined under age. The parents would know that the boy at the age of 18 had satisfied the authorities, had acted with full knowledge of what he was doing and head been accepted for the Army on those grounds. It would


be of advantage therefore to Members of Parliament, to parents and to the War Office. There cannot be many boys between 17 and 18 joining the Army, and if so, it is hardly worth while keeping up this practice year after year. The hon. Member for Shoreditch has already made the point that working-class families have difficulty in finding the money to buy out boys who join under age, whereas well-to-do parents have no trouble in that respect. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accede to our request on this occasion. As long as he maintains his present position he may expect opposition from us. If he wants to ease his own burden and to have a quiet night each time the Army Annual Bill comes round, he had better give way on this point. Otherwise we shall strengthen our opposition, and he will have to listen not to short speeches such as we are making to-night, but to much longer speeches. Therefore I hope that, for his own sake and for the sake of the gentlemen who are now listening to us in the official gallery, he will give way to our plea on this occasion.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. COOPER: The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) has been accused of pleading and of indulging in flattery. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) has adopted the other policy of indulging in threats. If I satisfy either hon. Member before I sit down I hope they will not think I have given way either to flattery or to threats. What has impressed me has been the powerful and reasoned case which the hon. Member for Shoreditch has put forward. He has submitted every sound argument in favour of his case, and I think one or two which were not sound. One can only suppose that he thought he might as well, on this occasion, put in everything in favour of his case. For instance, I cannot agree that there is anything sacrosanct about the age of 18. We have adopted that age simply as a mean. Everybody knows that there are boys of 17 and 17½ far better developed, mentally and physically, than boys of 18½ and 19. But in regulations it is necessary to fix an age. No one can definitely say that no boy under 18 is fit to be a soldier, or that any injustice would necessarily be done by allowing a boy of that age to take even such an important decision as that of joining the Army.
The hon. Member for Shoreditch said that parents in wealthy families would not dream of allowing their sons, when they left school at the age of 17, to commit themselves to such a course, but I would remind him that boys of much younger age are allowed and even encouraged by their parents very often to take an equally important decision in joining the Navy, and there are many instances in which boys in all ranks of life have at an early age to take decision which may ultimately affect their whole careers. The insuperable difficulty which makes it impossible for me to accept the new Clause on the Paper is that, if it were adopted, the practice might easily arise of boys of 17 joining the Army for a short time to see what it was like. There would be nothing to stop parents encouraging boys to go into the Army to see if they liked it and, if they did not like it, they could come out again.

Mr. TINKER: If they had to produce a birth certificate that would not be the case.

Mr. COOPER: There is nothing about a birth certificate in the new Clause. There would be the danger under this Clause, as I say, of boys joining the Army for a short time to see whether they liked it or not and while there may not at first sight appear to be anything absurd or impossible in that system, hon. Members will understand that such a system could not possibly be allowed or encouraged by the Army. Then the hon. Member for Leigh says: "Why not insist upon a birth certificate"? That is a very reasonable suggestion, but there are arguments against it. Indeed the hon. Member for Shoreditch has stated most of the arguments against it, though I do not think he stated them quite so well or at such length as the other arguments he used. There are cases in which boys wish to make a new start in life, very often because they feel that they have committed some incredible crime when, in fact, they have done nothing serious. There was a very sad case recently of a boy who committed suicide because he had done some foolish thing which at his age loomed large in his mind and appeared more grave to him than it would to anybody else. There are boys who, at that age, think they must make a new start and change their names and enter the Army. There may be many of those cases, and it


is difficult, and it may be impossible, to gauge their true number.
There are cases also where one of the things that holds boys back from recruiting is that diffidence avid shyness which is common to all Englishmen, and especially common at that age, and a reluctance especially to reveal the fact that their birth happened to be illegitimate. I think boys especially are extremely sensitive on this subject, and they feel that if they have to show a birth certificate to the recruiting officer, he may be their superior officer or their sergeant when they join their unit, and may hand on the information thus obtained to their fellows in the ranks, and they may suffer as a result. These are not unimportant considerations, and I would remind the House that recruiting at this time is extremely bad. It is really a very grave and serious problem. The dangers in the world, as we know, grow greater every day. We alone among the great Powers of Europe continue to maintain our defence system, with our enormous Imperial responsibilities, on a voluntary basis. There was something which the hon. Member said and something which the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) said, which I almost took as a promise that if they were met in any way in this matter, they would themselves try to fill up any deficiency that might be caused if they were met on this question. They both said they had no doubt it would be easier, if any change of this sort led to a greater fall in recruiting, to find the necessary men to make good the deficiency. They did not say they could be found, but—

Mr. THURTLE: May I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if, for instance, he came forward with a suggestion of better pay for the private soldier, he would get my support?

Mr. COOPER: That may be, but I seriously suggest, as I did when speaking on the Estimates—and I thought I met then with some response from the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street—that it is the duty of hon. Members opposite, just as it is the duty of hon. Members on this side, to do what they can in their constituencies to make it plain to those who support them that there is a good life awaiting them in the Army. It is

the policy of the Labour party to maintain a strong Army, and they should, if they are logical and wish to support their own policy, lend us their assistance in the great work of recruiting. This question of producing a birth certificate is one that I am prepared to say I will look into. There is a great deal of force and cogency in the arguments that have been put forward. I must, of course, make such careful inquiries as I can as to the extent to which such an alteration is likely to affect the numbers in the Army. At present, in this year that lies before us, we are going to do our utmost, as I have already said, to increase recruiting throughout the country. If recruiting does increase satisfactorily—and it can only increase satisfactorily if we have the support of all sections of the community in advocating it—I think it might well be possible that I should be able next year to adopt some suggestion of the kind put forward to-day which would get rid of many of these difficult cases and which would, after all, put the Army on the same basis as other occupations.

Mr. THURTLE: In view of the very promising statement which the Secretary of State for War has made, I would like, with the permission of the Committee, to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — PREAMBLE.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The next Amendment on the Paper—in page 1, line 9, after "Crown," to insert:
and for the carrying out of the obligations undertaken in connection with the Covenant of the League of Nations"—
is out of order.

Mr. MANDER: Will you be good enough, Sir Charles, to say in what way it is out of order? Is it not possible to put in words of this kind, showing what is the real object, according to the policy of the Government of the day, in maintaining an Army?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: This Bill deals with discipline, and an Amendment of this kind enters into the question of foreign policy.

Mr. MANDER: But the question of foreign policy is, I submit, dealt with in the Preamble, which states:


A body of land forces should be continued for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of His Majesty's Crown.
I am merely proposing to add words to those already existing in order to bring the Preamble up to date according to the present policy of the country. I am not introducing anything new, but merely adding to existing words.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: On that, I disagree. I think the Amendment would be introducing a new factor, and I am afraid it is out of order.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

10.15 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I desire to deal with a point which was ruled out of order in connection with the Preamble, and I am going to ask the Secretary of State if he would be good enough to look into this question before the Measure comes forward another time.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I am afraid that there are many Rulings to the effect that the purposes for which the Army may be used cannot be discussed on the Second or Third Readings. This is a Bill dealing merely with discipline in the Army.

Mr. MANDER: I am referring to certain words which are already in the Preamble, which say—
it is adjudged necessary by His Majesty and this present Parliament that a body of land forces should be continued for the safety of the United Kingdom and the defence of the possessions of His Majesty's Crown.
I am asking the Secretary of State whether he would be good enough to consider between now and next year whether the wording of the Preamble could be made more in keeping with the present day policy of the Government, the House and the country. I appreciate that it is rather a difficult point to argue at any length, but I want to make this appeal to my right hon. Friend, for no one is more interested in the question of the foreign policy which occurs in the part of the Preamble which I have quoted than the Secretary of State himself. If he can give some indication that he will look

into it, as he has in regard to another matter to-night, I should be well satisfied.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Gentleman is raising a question of adding words to the Preamble, that has been constantly ruled out of order on Third Reading.

Mr. MANDER: Surely it is in order to discuss the actual wording of the Preamble. I am referring to the existing wording, and I am suggesting that it is inadequate at the present moment. I am asking the Secretary of State whether he will consider the wording before next year.

Mr. SPEAKER: It depends on the reason why the hon. Member wishes to alter the Preamble. If he wishes to alter the wording to say to what purpose the Army should be put, it would be out of order.

Mr. MANDER: I am not disputing the immediate purpose which is given in the Preamble. I am suggesting that there is a further purpose, and that the Preamble is not up to date, that it is misleading, and that it does not represent the principal purpose for the maintenance of the Army as it has not only been declared by the Government, but as it exists in many other Acts of Parliament as, for instance, the Peace Treaty Act that was passed at the end of the War. I suggest that in these circumstances it is reasonable to ask the Secretary of State to look into the matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: The question the hon. Member raises is out of order because, if he wanted to amend the Preamble, it should have been done on the Committee stage. I fancy, however, that it would be ruled out of order on the Committee stage. As far as the Minister looking into the matter is concerned, I see no harm in the hon. Member saying that.

Mr. MANDER: Would you be good enough to inform me in what way it is possible for an hon. Member to propose any alteration in the Preamble? It could not be done on the Committee stage, there is no Report stage, and no reference can be made to it on Third Reading.

Mr. SPEAKER: The only way in which it could be done would be on the Committee stage, and the hon. Member must refer to the Chairman of Committees.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I understood you to say, Mr. Speaker, that you saw no reason why the Secretary of State should not look into the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander). Would it be in order to advance reasons why the Secretary of State should look into the matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: Not if it were done with a view to altering the Preamble.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes after Ten o'Clock.